FullFace helmets banned!
#1
FullFace helmets banned!
Hey All, i need some help from u all.
My country banned FullFace helmets, for better identification.
Riders here are treated very cheep. Please help us by signing into this petition. It's a great help *we got no protection at all*
Your saving life's of riders here.
Thanks a lot!
(to vote please check below link)
Link -
Law makers in Sri Lankan government must withdraw the decision to ban FullFace Helmet usage in the country.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition...try_1/?dVROcgb
Regards,
Supermoto59
My country banned FullFace helmets, for better identification.
Riders here are treated very cheep. Please help us by signing into this petition. It's a great help *we got no protection at all*
Your saving life's of riders here.
Thanks a lot!
(to vote please check below link)
Link -
Law makers in Sri Lankan government must withdraw the decision to ban FullFace Helmet usage in the country.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition...try_1/?dVROcgb
Regards,
Supermoto59
#5
I read it. I was being sarcastic with what I read.
#7
Signed and approved. What a goofy law; really, how stupid. Let's sacrifice rider safety for LEO "identification" convenience. If a rider has violated a traffic law or the LEO has probable cause to pull the rider over, then ask him to remove his/her helmet...pretty easy stuff. If the rider has NOT violated the law, then there's no reason to be "identifying" said rider (aside from the visually apparent characteristics, i.e. green/black helmet, tinted shield, etc.).
#8
Signed and approved. What a goofy law; really, how stupid. Let's sacrifice rider safety for LEO "identification" convenience. If a rider has violated a traffic law or the LEO has probable cause to pull the rider over, then ask him to remove his/her helmet...pretty easy stuff. If the rider has NOT violated the law, then there's no reason to be "identifying" said rider (aside from the visually apparent characteristics, i.e. green/black helmet, tinted shield, etc.).
well the pro is cz of people who steal some robbers have sports bikes so even the good in that list
#9
Signed and approved. What a goofy law; really, how stupid. Let's sacrifice rider safety for LEO "identification" convenience. If a rider has violated a traffic law or the LEO has probable cause to pull the rider over, then ask him to remove his/her helmet...pretty easy stuff. If the rider has NOT violated the law, then there's no reason to be "identifying" said rider (aside from the visually apparent characteristics, i.e. green/black helmet, tinted shield, etc.).
You have U.S. think, not Sri Lanka think. I will tell you I went into a bank once to ask directions and they wouldn't deal with me until I took off my helmet. Some places might have called the police... and that is in the U.S.
If the crime rate of riders and passengers with full face helmets went up enough in some states odds are full face helmets would be banned there. The citizens speak... even if it doesn't make sense.
Last edited by klx678; 11-12-2013 at 10:40 PM.
#10
OK; yeah...(klx^) you're exactly right about my ethnocentrism; point made.
However (you knew this was coming...) I struggle a bit with enacting a law which punishes law-abiding bikers..i.e. puts them at increased risk of serious injury/hospital bills/etc., to protect other citizens who are victims of petty theft or other primarily "property" crimes. To DENY available-proven safety protection to a larger group (probably?) in order to marginally increase the conviction rate (assuming witnesses can effectively ID the perps.....not sure I could even with an open face helmet) of petty thugs seems bass-ackwards. What's next? Outlawing armoured motorcycle jackets because they negatively impact the ability of the victim to guess relative size and build of the perp? I dunno.....that's a slippery slope.....
However (you knew this was coming...) I struggle a bit with enacting a law which punishes law-abiding bikers..i.e. puts them at increased risk of serious injury/hospital bills/etc., to protect other citizens who are victims of petty theft or other primarily "property" crimes. To DENY available-proven safety protection to a larger group (probably?) in order to marginally increase the conviction rate (assuming witnesses can effectively ID the perps.....not sure I could even with an open face helmet) of petty thugs seems bass-ackwards. What's next? Outlawing armoured motorcycle jackets because they negatively impact the ability of the victim to guess relative size and build of the perp? I dunno.....that's a slippery slope.....