ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-29-2012, 06:49 PM   #226
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Curvin View Post
This statement alone should shut down these threads. That's the exact statement that opened my eyes many years ago.

Unfortunately some folks are too dense/self righteous to get it.
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigToad View Post
While they were there protecting our liberties they were forced to wear helmets, gee i wonder why?

Beyond a shadow of a doubt a helmet has saved my life more than once, I simply won't ride without it. Now with way more cars on the roads (ie way more shitty drivers) plus cellphones, all the more reasons to wear one!

Therefore I could give a rats ass if someone takes that liberty away from anyone! (I can here the whiners already....oh next it will be another liberty gone....like assault rifles or Big Macs blah blah blah)

Count yourself lucky if ya haven't crashed and landed on your head!
You are confusing helmets with helmet LAWS. I'm fully in favor of helmets and use them every time I ride. It is very likely that doing so has saved my life as well. That does NOT mean that I claim the right to dictate that others use them. You SHOULD "give a rat's ass" if ANYONE takes ANY liberty away from ANYONE ELSE. Otherwise, the liberties you do care about are not safe either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
That 'level of safety' is already decided upon for us. Every OSHA reg, PPE reg, building code, speed limit, airbag, tire pressure monitor.
FFS man, are you serious?
Most of those are illegitimate, and for the same reason. Yes, I'm serious. We are WAY over the line on nanny-state bullshit already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
It amazes me that you cannot make a simple logical connection: There is no explicit right stated anywhere which says, "you may engage in dangerous activity without a helmet."

There is a simple "Life, liberty, Pursuit of Happiness" issue here.

So the question is this and only this. Is it a reasonable infringement on the right of 'happiness' to require you to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. The State Supreme Court said absolutely not. Requiring the use of a helmet in not a sufficiently serious restriction on the rider when viewed next to the benefit to society (even to those too stupid to understand it). ...
The reason some people objected to the Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution was the fear that people would misinterpret as the list of rights, and feel free to violate any rights not listed. hat's exactly why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added -- to try to make it clear that the rights explicitly stated were NOT to be taken as anything like a complete list -- they were only the few rights thought to be the most critical for keeping political freedom, for protecting people from the government. It appears that their concern was well founded, as even with that added clarity, a lot of people still somehow claim that if a right isn't listed then it isn't protected.

The very meaning of the word "liberty" is that you have the right to do whatever you want, provided only that you respect the equal right of others to do the same.

And I have lost all respect for courts, up to and including state and U.S. Supreme Courts, at abiding by the Constitution and protecting and respecting our rights and liberty. You'd get better results by flipping a coin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
What about the freedom of the public not to pay the bill for people who 'decide' under the guise of some 'it's my right, man' to make themselves 60% more likely to sustain serious injury?
I absolutely agree there -- no one has the right to expect others to pay for his decisions, no one has the right to force some to pay for others. But that's a problem with the practice of forcing people to pay for others, and the answer is to stop doign that. It is NOT to violate yet more rights and freedoms in order to minimize the damage done by the previous violations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
So where's all this talk about freedom and personal responsibility to decide? You want to be responsible for your decisions? Fine-- no money for you. How about this, those involved in a motorcycle crash sustaining head injuries and not wearing a helmet receive no money from the State-- from the rest of the people who live in the State. Once their insurance is used up (in a matter of days) the hospital pulls the plug and the become organ donors or cadavers for med schools. ...
I'm all for this, as long as it is applied fairly across the board. No money for you if at the time of your accident you were driving drunk, on the phone, not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, have a headlight out, have bald tires, or in any other way contributed to the accident or the injuries received.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (230,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 06:50 PM   #227
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAKEZ View Post
I Actually believe that the same thinking should apply to both. That is what is so baffling. Those that scream loudest about keeping your laws off my body are the same ones that scream for helmets. It makes NO SENSE.

Keep your laws off my person.
+1!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
Obviously we have someone here who thinks motorcycling should be outlawed.

In about 100,000 miles there was one foreign object impact that would have been able to cause me trouble if I was helmetless. But then that was at triple the speed than I would ride without a helmet. Also a hit to the body could as well lead to an accident, but there's no law for full armor.

That's a contradiction in itself. Take a look at Bobby's figures about motorcyclist injuries and fatalities. No one in a sane state of mind could "choosing to ride" call "doing reasonable things to mitigate risk".
+1 and nicely done. Of course he will fail to grasp your points entirely, but that's not your fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
One, are you being intentionally thick or trying to use hyperbole to prove a(n incorrect) point? You know that's not what I'm trying to say. Yet, you typed those words anyway. ...
Whaddyaknow -- I'm a freaking Nostradamus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
... I can't imagine anyone who would avoid taking the 10 seconds to put on a helmet that drastically reduces the chance of a serious head injury in the event of an accident. Just so they can have a tiny taste of extra personal freedom. If you had the common sense to wear a helmet in the first place than a helmet law has no effect on your personal freedom! ...
Well, some of us are concerned not with JUST our own personal freedom, but have the integrity to care about the personal freedom of other people, even if those people make different choices than we would. Principles are good, and integrity is good, and being rational and consistent in one's own beliefs is good. More people should try these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
Trying or not, you DO say it. Of course you never will admit it, because that would mean to face your own double standards.

No. We can if we wish to. If we instead wish to accept a higher risk to increase our life quality that's fine as well. But again there are your double standards, telling us we must do what you think we have to while allowing the dangers you like to take yourself.
Another fine post he won't understand.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (230,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)

PhilB screwed with this post 12-29-2012 at 07:00 PM
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:50 PM   #228
DAKEZ
Beastly Adventurer
 
DAKEZ's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: OR
Oddometer: 19,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
Motorcycles are only 2 percent of the registered vehicles nationally, but motorcyclist fatalities are 5 percent of traffic fatalities each year. Motorcyclists account for over 2,100 fatalities and 56,000 injuries. The fatality rate per mile traveled for motorcyclists is 16 times that of car occupants, and the injury rate is about 4 times that of car occupants.

Thank you so very much for making my point!!!


Do you care to take it further and share with the class as to how many of those deaths were wearing helmets?

How about the percentage of those 56,000 that were injured that were wearing helmets?

Oh please do go on and show just how insignificant your squeaky wheel is in the big picture of what costs society money.

Your sniveling like a little girl about a statistically insignificant cost angle is laughable. Tell us please once you get motorcycles banned, what is the next freedom squashing nonsense bandwagon going to be?

Do share. You are a selfish little boy throwing a temper tantrum because other thinking adults want to be left alone. You think motorcycles are dangerous... They are not. It is the human at the controls of the bike that makes them dangerous.

The crazy part is we are both in complete agreement that helmets work to protect riders from some unnecessary head injuries. Where we part ways is you feel the need to force others to comply with your belief and say the cost to others is significant when the truth says otherwise.

You want to reduce cost? Focus of the 50% of the crashes that were impaired by alcohol. Focus on the 37% of collisions that are do to right of way violations from other road users. I am not talking about "Watch Out for Motorcycles" billboards. I blame the riders for not catering to how human vision works. Those billboards would do more if they read "Motorcycles Watch Out"

If you want to lower costs focus on teaching riders how to be seen. Those that ride impaired deserve their fate.

Helmet use is a grain of sand in a bucket full of waste and you sir are an arrogant freedom hating joke.

p.s. How is your colon?
__________________
“Watch out for everything bigger than you, they have the "right of weight"
Bib
DAKEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:30 AM   #229
randyo
Beastly Adventurer
 
randyo's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Northern NewEngland
Oddometer: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craneguy View Post
Here are some numbers to chew on from a study by the CDC:

CDC study finds universal motorcycle helmet laws increase helmet use, save money
Annual cost savings in states with universal motorcycle helmet laws were nearly four times greater (per registered motorcycle) than in states without these comprehensive laws, according to a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report study released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Universal helmet laws require that motorcycle riders and passengers wear a helmet every time they ride.

Full press release here: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ycle_laws.html
Is this the same Center for Disease Control that doesn't recognize Chronic Lyme as a disease and tells me I'm cured cause I took doxycycline for 3 weeks

Ya, I believe em
__________________
RandyO
IBA # 9560
07 VeeStrom
99 SV650
82 XV920R
A man with a gun is a citizen
A man without a gun is a subject
randyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:24 AM   #230
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
Trying or not, you DO say it. Of course you never will admit it, because that would mean to face your own double standards.



No. We can if we wish to. If we instead wish to accept a higher risk to increase our life quality that's fine as well. But again there are your double standards, telling us we must do what you think we have to while allowing the dangers you like to take yourself.

Now I know you're just being thick. Intentional or not. I have never suggested outlawing motorcycles much less hinted at it. In fact I have written a goddamn thesis about how, despite the dangers, we (especially me) continue to ride them while trying reduce the dangers the best we can. That includes training, gear, motorcycle maintenance, and riding motorcycle like a professional.

This does nothing to limit the enjoyment of motorcycling, as FajitaDave eloquently said, you can't finish your ride, enjoy your adventure and drink fully from the well of life with an otherwise easily avoided closed head injury suffered on the first day of the trip.


Where are the double standards? There are no double standards. Your argument-- which, sir, you must respectfully let go as you mature in your thinking-- is pure hogshyte.

We're building a new house and we cannot afford to sod the lawn. According to you we needn't bother putting the roof on, either. The logic is horrible.

When engaging in an undisputably dangerous activity you have the obligation as a family member, as a productive member of society to mitigate those risks that can be easily mitigated.

That is my position. There are no one-way concessions included in it.

Futhermore, perhaps you forgot that people in Michigan have to pay that MCCA fee which went UP the year that helmets were no longer required. Anyone who says that the cost of catastrophic hear injuries isn't a burden shared by the rest of the public can stop saying that now as it is concretely shown by that fact.

Imagine you want to plate and insure you WR450X. No comprehensive, no theft. You'll be riding it on roads just to link up trailheads. It might cost you 400 dollars for the season-- except that you have to add 175 additional dollars for the MCCA since you will be on the roads and you know, all of us share the burden for those catastrophic accidents.
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:33 AM   #231
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAKEZ View Post

Oh please do go on and show just how insignificant your squeaky wheel is in the big picture of what costs society money.
Your sniveling like a little girl about a statistically insignificant cost angle is laughable. Tell us please once you get motorcycles banned, what is the next freedom squashing nonsense bandwagon going to be?
Do share. You are a selfish little boy throwing a temper tantrum because other thinking adults want to be left alone. You think motorcycles are dangerous... They are not. It is the human at the controls of the bike that makes them dangerous.
So this is the level of discourse you want to share: calling names, mixing metaphors in an embarassing fashion and still refusing to come to grips with the wickedly confusing and monumentally challenging your/you're conondrum?

You refuse to address the salient points the issues put forth and instead prefer to fling poo. That is the sort of exchange employed by chimps.

So, if you want to continue any sort of discussion with me, you need to tighten up both your logic and your manner of dialogue or you will be disinvited from the conversation. This is not jomomma, sir.

For the record, I wrote about a fellow who crashed Fourth of July without his helmet and his current status and the impact on his wife, his family, his union, etc. That one wreck is more than enough to consider reinstating that law. It has cost the public an amazing amount of money and his family an amazing amount of pain and his union was nearly brought to its knees over this wreck because he had a crash on a two lane road at 45 mph with no helmet and sustained a closed head injury. Because there's no law and he couldn't be arsed to take 10 seconds to clip on his helmet.
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:38 AM   #232
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB View Post
Thanks.

Most of those are illegitimate, and for the same reason. Yes, I'm serious. We are WAY over the line on nanny-state bullshit already.

The very meaning of the word "liberty" is that you have the right to do whatever you want, provided only that you respect the equal right of others to do the same.

OSHA regs are illegitimate?

You have made your position (somewhere orbiting neptune, I think) completely clear.

Thank you for your participation.

I made an assertion which you ignored (probably while smearing yourself with peanut butter and howling at the moon) that anyone not wearing a helmet and sustaining a head injury would receive no money from the State. Therefore we would be following your logic that his 'liberty' of not protecting himself in a very easy, simple way from a serious risk would not 'disrespect' the rights of those forced to pay the MCCA.

Once their private insurance was used up, they were unplugged and either used as organ donors or cadavers for the state med schools. I fhey were on some sort of government program or had no insurance, organs would be harvested immediately. Or perhaps the members of ABATE would gather together and pay for the care needed.

Deal?

(sorry about the peanut butter comment-- just taking the piss, sir. No disrespect intended)
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 02:29 PM   #233
ttpete
Rectum Non Bustibus
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Dearborn, MI
Oddometer: 5,338
Quote:
Futhermore, perhaps you forgot that people in Michigan have to pay that MCCA fee which went UP the year that helmets were no longer required. Anyone who says that the cost of catastrophic hear injuries isn't a burden shared by the rest of the public can stop saying that now as it is concretely shown by that fact.
There's no cause-and-effect there. At least not that you can prove. You might start by going to the MCCA website and familiarizing yourself with it. Michigan has no-fault insurance for everything EXCEPT motorcycles. MCCA only pays off if the motorcyclist has contact with a four or more wheeled vehicle. It doesn't cover single or multiple motorcycle accidents that don't involve the mentioned vehicles.

MCCA rates are keyed to the amount paid out the previous year, and have, with one exception, risen EVERY year. They look at total costs and don't categorize anything.

It sucks because motorcyclists are paying full price for half the coverage.
__________________
10 Ducati 1098 Streetfighter S - "Sleipnir"
09 Kaw Versys
67 Triumph Bonneville TT Special
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" _____ Margaret Thatcher
ttpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 02:56 PM   #234
farmerstu
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Minnesota west central
Oddometer: 373
huh, what bobbysands is wrong? you mean mr. thesis didn't properly vett his sources? why, if that's true it means he's just a blowhard dink. whoda thought.

farmerstu screwed with this post 12-30-2012 at 02:57 PM Reason: spelling
farmerstu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:50 PM   #235
Butters
. . . . . .
 
Butters's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NoVA
Oddometer: 2,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
You are incorrect on both accounts. You'd LIKE it, hell, you'd love it if weren't so. But you cannot provide a single iota of evidence to support such a claim.

But I can. A rider in this state falls, not wearing a helmet. Passenger, not wearing helmet dies. His children are now collecting social security. The survivor has massive head trauma. They drill holes, release pressure, he comes out of the coma-- to a point. His wife leaves their house and moves in the survivors brother bring his 4 children with her. His hospital and care facility stay was 5 months. He has only limited speech, can't walk without support, and will never work again or enjoy beer and watch the footie match. He nearly bankrupted his union's health care fund and expended his lifetime allowance according to his insurance carrier. His care is now in our hands. His 4 children have a shell of a father, his wife is now a full time caretaker of a man who only sometimes recognises her.

This wreck has cost a bloody fortune to his family's emotions, his estate, his union.

And that one wreck-- that's enough in my eyes and in the eyes of the TWENTY FIVE state supreme courts who have upheld helmet laws, has cost enough to impinge upon your happiness enough to make the sacrifice of clicking one fucking strap on a helmt.
Maybe we can all tone down the rhetoric and discuss this civilly?

Helmet laws are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean they are good. And we can all have logical reasons why we prefer one law, or lack thereof, over another.

I don't see that you have addressed any of my issues with helmet laws, they are two fold:

Can you show helmetless riders cost society more money than helmeted ones? I don't mean assumptions since they are protective that they save money, but actual numbers showing accidents by helmetless riders cost society more than accidents by helmeted riders (lack of insurance being an entirely separate issue). Your example is hardly exclusive to helmetless riders. The fact that you have shown how a helmetless riders' accident can cost society money, you have not shown how that is any worse than the same accident by a helmeted rider.

-- Now lets assume you can even show that (which nobody has done so far). What is a reasonable cost per resident to pay for the personal freedom of riding how they wish? Your answer may be $0.00, that society shouldn't bear a cost for such a silly freedom. Nothing wrong with that, but that is your OPINION. A reasonable person may believe society should be willing to pay $XX.XX for that freedom. That would also be their opinion. Clearly, many people here are willing to pay for that freedom even if we never plan to use it.

-- The second issue that arises is that if your justification for the state to enact a law is the cost to society, you have started sliding down a slippery slope. Here's where many of the previous posters took issue with your posts. If cost to society is the justification, then the same justification could/should be used to prohibit riding motorcycles. By your own post, you have shown they are more dangerous than cars. But you have drawn your own line (opinion) at a helmet law, rather than a prohibition of motorcycling. But if I were to enact a motorcycle ban, I would simply use your logic as justification. I guess that logic would be foolproof, no?

I don't intend to say any of this disrespectfully. I am more than happy to re-visit my logic if you can show where it is flawed.
__________________
Marc
07 XChallenge
Butters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:54 PM   #236
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerstu View Post
huh, what bobbysands is wrong? you mean mr. thesis didn't properly vett his sources? why, if that's true it means he's just a blowhard dink. whoda thought.
Yeah, between 2010-2011 it went up $1.91

The people in that state have to cover the victims of catastrophic accidents. Because that state has no limit on policies:

The MCCA is necessary in Michigan because insurance policies issued to drivers in the state are unlimited in the amount of coverage they provide.

So every motorcycle crash victim without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury will be taken care of by the other people in the state, and depending how much was paid out the year before that amount will increase. It's an incredibly selfish move and has nothing to do with personal freedom.

These fact are irrefutable.

Furthermore, of the 10's of assertion having been made in the last couple days, THAT's the one upon which all others rest?

Nice name calling as well. Well, when you got nothing else in the rucksack...
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:09 PM   #237
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butters View Post
Maybe we can all tone down the rhetoric and discuss this civilly?

Helmet laws are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean they are good. And we can all have logical reasons why we prefer one law, or lack thereof, over another.

I don't see that you have addressed any of my issues with helmet laws, they are two fold:

Can you show helmetless riders cost society more money than helmeted ones? I don't mean assumptions since they are protective that they save money, but actual numbers showing accidents by helmetless riders cost society more than accidents by helmeted riders (lack of insurance being an entirely separate issue). Your example is hardly exclusive to helmetless riders. The fact that you have shown how a helmetless riders' accident can cost society money, you have not shown how that is any worse than the same accident by a helmeted rider.

-- Now lets assume you can even show that (which nobody has done so far). What is a reasonable cost per resident to pay for the personal freedom of riding how they wish? Your answer may be $0.00, that society shouldn't bear a cost for such a silly freedom. Nothing wrong with that, but that is your OPINION. A reasonable person may believe society should be willing to pay $XX.XX for that freedom. That would also be their opinion. Clearly, many people here are willing to pay for that freedom even if we never plan to use it.

-- The second issue that arises is that if your justification for the state to enact a law is the cost to society, you have started sliding down a slippery slope. Here's where many of the previous posters took issue with your posts. If cost to society is the justification, then the same justification could/should be used to prohibit riding motorcycles. By your own post, you have shown they are more dangerous than cars. But you have drawn your own line (opinion) at a helmet law, rather than a prohibition of motorcycling. But if I were to enact a motorcycle ban, I would simply use your logic as justification. I guess that logic would be foolproof, no?

I don't intend to say any of this disrespectfully. I am more than happy to re-visit my logic if you can show where it is flawed.

Show me where I was being uncivil in that quote and an apology will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what you mean by rhetoric but it was one my strong suits. I hope it still is.

I don't understand. You want me to prove to you that a fellow riding a motorbike without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury costs the general public money?

Honestly? I think you just want me to spend time digging up statistics. Why did I spend time writing about that fellow who crashed the fourth of July?

Who do think will pay for his care, his childrens social security, and the mountain of medical bill already generated?

The line is drawn by the courts, which have stated that there will be a weighing of restrictions/regulations vs. the infringement of the rights of the public.

the image of a slippery slope is one commonly thrown out by those who dislike a regulation or rule or forced registration. But more often than not it's a complete myth.

The courts will alway judge the good of the many vs. the personal rights of the individual. In which case, putting a ban on all motorcycle riding next a law requiring the use of a helmet or the use of a seatbelt is a meaningless parlour game. The two aren't even close in amount of infringement and trying to make that assertion is waste of time.

Mainly, because any reasonable fellow would see, if he weren't blinded by-- I don't know what makes this so hard to understand since every other industrialised nation has a helmet law-- some twisted, mutated, mangled idea of liberty.

I also want to point out that I mentioned emotiona distress to his children and his wife, but you haven't included that at all. For people who speak about 'liberty' also talk at other times about personal responsibility. Yet in this case, the incredibly selfish act of not wearing a helmet is met with a hearty pat on the back. It is bewildering.
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

Schlug screwed with this post 12-30-2012 at 06:16 PM
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:19 PM   #238
B.Curvin
Feral Chia tamer
 
B.Curvin's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Left of the dial. Canton, NC
Oddometer: 2,699
-end thread-


Quote:
Originally Posted by Butters View Post
Maybe we can all tone down the rhetoric and discuss this civilly?

Helmet laws are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean they are good. And we can all have logical reasons why we prefer one law, or lack thereof, over another.

I don't see that you have addressed any of my issues with helmet laws, they are two fold:

Can you show helmetless riders cost society more money than helmeted ones? I don't mean assumptions since they are protective that they save money, but actual numbers showing accidents by helmetless riders cost society more than accidents by helmeted riders (lack of insurance being an entirely separate issue). Your example is hardly exclusive to helmetless riders. The fact that you have shown how a helmetless riders' accident can cost society money, you have not shown how that is any worse than the same accident by a helmeted rider.

-- Now lets assume you can even show that (which nobody has done so far). What is a reasonable cost per resident to pay for the personal freedom of riding how they wish? Your answer may be $0.00, that society shouldn't bear a cost for such a silly freedom. Nothing wrong with that, but that is your OPINION. A reasonable person may believe society should be willing to pay $XX.XX for that freedom. That would also be their opinion. Clearly, many people here are willing to pay for that freedom even if we never plan to use it.

-- The second issue that arises is that if your justification for the state to enact a law is the cost to society, you have started sliding down a slippery slope. Here's where many of the previous posters took issue with your posts. If cost to society is the justification, then the same justification could/should be used to prohibit riding motorcycles. By your own post, you have shown they are more dangerous than cars. But you have drawn your own line (opinion) at a helmet law, rather than a prohibition of motorcycling. But if I were to enact a motorcycle ban, I would simply use your logic as justification. I guess that logic would be foolproof, no?

I don't intend to say any of this disrespectfully. I am more than happy to re-visit my logic if you can show where it is flawed.

Butters

Damn. I added your name at the end so that when I quote it I give proper credit.

__________________
Mutt'n the custard.

Porsche Audi VW
B.Curvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:22 PM   #239
RogerWilco
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Oddometer: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
Now I know you're just being thick. Intentional or not. I have never suggested outlawing motorcycles much less hinted at it. In fact I have written a goddamn thesis about how, despite the dangers, we (especially me) continue to ride them while trying reduce the dangers the best we can. That includes training, gear, motorcycle maintenance, and riding motorcycle like a professional.

This does nothing to limit the enjoyment of motorcycling, as FajitaDave eloquently said, you can't finish your ride, enjoy your adventure and drink fully from the well of life with an otherwise easily avoided closed head injury suffered on the first day of the trip.


Where are the double standards? There are no double standards. Your argument-- which, sir, you must respectfully let go as you mature in your thinking-- is pure hogshyte.

We're building a new house and we cannot afford to sod the lawn. According to you we needn't bother putting the roof on, either. The logic is horrible.

When engaging in an undisputably dangerous activity you have the obligation as a family member, as a productive member of society to mitigate those risks that can be easily mitigated.

That is my position. There are no one-way concessions included in it.

Futhermore, perhaps you forgot that people in Michigan have to pay that MCCA fee which went UP the year that helmets were no longer required. Anyone who says that the cost of catastrophic hear injuries isn't a burden shared by the rest of the public can stop saying that now as it is concretely shown by that fact.

Imagine you want to plate and insure you WR450X. No comprehensive, no theft. You'll be riding it on roads just to link up trailheads. It might cost you 400 dollars for the season-- except that you have to add 175 additional dollars for the MCCA since you will be on the roads and you know, all of us share the burden for those catastrophic accidents.
Sir, you can most easily mitigate much risk by simply not riding dangerous motorcyles, period. To state that you do "what can easily be done to mitigate the risk" of riding motorcycles is to ignore the fact that I, along with the many taxpayers who will have to support you and your family after you are injured or killed while riding, recognize that the easiest thing that can be done is to simply prevent you from riding this most dangerous of conveyances.
You seen to think it is okay to mandate that others be forced to abide by that which YOU deem resonable: wearing helmets.
You seem to ignor that there are others who would mandate that which is reasonable to THEM: that YOU not be allowed to ride a dangerous motorcycle, when you could simply utilize an option that THEY feel is quick, easy and reasonable: automobiles.
RogerWilco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:27 PM   #240
B.Curvin
Feral Chia tamer
 
B.Curvin's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Left of the dial. Canton, NC
Oddometer: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerWilco View Post
Sir, you can most easily mitigate much risk by simply not riding dangerous motorcyles, period. To state that you do "what can easily be done to mitigate the risk" of riding motorcycles is to ignore the fact that I, along with the many taxpayers who will have to support you and your family after you are injured or killed while riding, recognize that the easiest thing that can be done is to simply prevent you from riding this most dangerous of conveyances.
You seen to think it is okay to mandate that others be forced to abide by that which YOU deem resonable: wearing helmets.
You seem to ignor that there are others who would mandate that which is reasonable to THEM: that YOU not be allowed to ride a dangerous motorcycle, when you could simply utilize an option that THEY feel is quick, easy and reasonable: automobiles.


(pssst. I've determined he's far too thick, self-righteous and arrogant to grasp it.)


BTW, I always wear a full face helmet (usually Arai), and I think it is stupid not to, but I do not support helmet laws.
__________________
Mutt'n the custard.

Porsche Audi VW
B.Curvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014