Connecticut: Wear a Helmet or Donate Your Organs

[admin]

… There has truly never been a better time to stick a lid on it, folks.

In a shocking new bill published under the Connnecticut General Assembly‘s website, riders who do not wear a motorcycle helmet will no longer have autonomy over their organs if they lose their life in an accident.

Janaki Jitchotvisut from RideApart tells us that this macabre munchy was courtesy of state senator Martin M. Looney of the 11th District, who “introduced the controversial bill in January, 2023 [a few days ago, during the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) Session Year 2023]… and the AMA is fighting it.”

Perhaps the toughest bit of grit to swallow is the reason for the bill, outlined simply in an understated format on CGA’s website:

“To improve public health.”


Connecticut’s Proposed Senate Bill No. 96, which posits that organs from expired, post-impact riders can be forfeited. Media sourced from CGA.

Here’s the PDF version of the above Proposed Senate Bill No. 96.

The bill is mercifully short… more than that, it’s entirely without admittance that the same officials setting Connecticut’s non-mandatory lid rules (mandatory under 18 years of age) are the ones positing a bill “to help fix declining organ donation rates in Connecticut” (via CycleNews).

“Adult riders who are fully licensed may choose not to wear a helmet under state law… [and] if the Senator and his constituents don’t like it [then] it’s literally [their] job to propose a bill that would change that law,” adds Jitchotvisut.

The AMA’s reaction has been swift and sure, with AMA Government Relations Director Mike Sayre putting out in a press release that “the decision to become a donor is a deeply personal one—one that this legislation would take away from motorcyclists.”

It gets better.


Two motorcyclists looking into the sunset. Media sourced from RideApart.

When contacted by the AMA Government Relations Department, CycleNews tells us Senator Looney’s office responded as thus:

“The staffer stated that their position was that if motorcyclists put their lives at risk by riding helmetless, they assume those riders don’t care where their organs end up.”

What do you think? Is there reason to have Senate Bill No. 96?

Let us know in the comments below to get the conversation started, subscribe for more updates as they come trickling down the proverbial Powersports pipeline, and as ever – stay safe on the twisties.

*Media sourced from CGA, Harvard and RideApart*​

The post Connecticut: Wear a Helmet or Donate Your Organs appeared first on webBikeWorld.

Continue reading...

 

[TNHoosier]

Unbelievable.

 

[670cc]

While shocking, I’d have to guess that there are hundreds of similarly “looney” bills proposed across the country that likely have little chance of becoming law.

Nonetheless, the article does suggest a good reason for joining the AMA, so you’ll have a group working in motorcyclist’s favor in these legislative matters.

 

[Rabbit]

While shocking, I’d have to guess that there are hundreds of similarly “looney” bills proposed across the country that likely have little chance of becoming law.

Nonetheless, the article does suggest a good reason for joining the AMA, so you’ll have a group working in motorcyclist’s favor in these legislative matters.

It’s a huge part of why I’m a member.

 

[NE-Okie]

....and these people probably think WE are the barbarians!

 

[Klap]

To play devil’s advocate here, if bikers are so incredibly stupid as to choose not to wear a helmet , then I think they SHOULD lose the rights to their organs.
You may argue all you like about “freedom of choice”, “ the right to choose”, or any rot like that, but when one of these stupid helmetless riders wrecks, who do you think pays for it in increased insurance rates, reduced opportunities, ( in some cases, bikers have been denied insurance because of increased fatalities due to lack of helmets), and the general public’s lack of empathy due to seeing Neanderthals on bikes with no helmets or other protective gear?
I am totally against the Nanny State running our lives cradle to grave, but sometimes stupidity and ignorance must be curtailed.

 

[NE-Okie]

I totally see your point.

This whole situation has a several issues that ain't right.

The concept of "conform or we own your guts" doesn't even sound right unless we are in China. And the Chinese know it is so wrong that they deny every bit of it unless you want a cheap kidney.

This law might make Chinese type behavior legal but it sure doesn't make it right.

 

[670cc]

To play devil’s advocate here, if bikers are so incredibly stupid as to choose not to wear a helmet , then I think they SHOULD lose the rights to their organs.
You may argue all you like about “freedom of choice”, “ the right to choose”, or any rot like that, but when one of these stupid helmetless riders wrecks, who do you think pays for it in increased insurance rates, reduced opportunities, ( in some cases, bikers have been denied insurance because of increased fatalities due to lack of helmets), and the general public’s lack of empathy due to seeing Neanderthals on bikes with no helmets or other protective gear?
I am totally against the Nanny State running our lives cradle to grave, but sometimes stupidity and ignorance must be curtailed.

Well the next step after that is just to ban motorcycle riding altogether. Even with helmets on, riding is far more dangerous than driving an automobile, so motorcycling itself could be considered stupidity.

 

[NE-Okie]

Well the next step after that is just to ban motorcycle riding altogether. Even with helmets on, riding is far more dangerous than driving an automobile, so motorcycling itself could be considered stupidity.

I hate it when someone points out the obvious when we try so hard to avoid it.

 

[briderdt]

As if the last three years weren't enough to convince you that our government wants (many of) us dead.

 

[NE-Okie]

As if the last three years weren't enough to convince you that our government wants (many of) us dead.

It would be hard to disagree with that.