Michigan Helmet Laws - A Detailed Look Into a Newly Helmetless State

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Ah, the core problem. You have exactly zero idea what the concepts of individual rights and liberty and freedom mean, and completely disregard them in your analysis. Your argument allows for the government to violate any and every right a person has, if only they can come up with an adequate cost-benefit rationale. That is NOT what having rights means. That is not what liberty means. That is not what freedom means.

PhilB

This was the decision of 25 state Supreme Courts, not me. I.e, people smarter than you, likely smarter than the both of us. Stop making this an ad hominem attack. (look it up)

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by Wraith Rider

You are incredibly selfish as well every time you hop on your bike and accept high amounts of emotional distress to the persons who like you, just for a bit of irrational, personal fun. You are preaching water and drinking vine. THAT is bewildering.

16 times as dangerous as car driving you said, 16 times as expensive to society, 16 times as likely to badly hurt the ones who love you. And YOU get off giving talks to us about being incredibly selfish. Ludicrous.

Why do you insist on ignoring that fact that wearing a helmet is the easiest way to mitigate these risks?

point 1.
Riding a motorbike is more dangerous than driving a car. And does cost the non-motorbike riding public more money.
point 2.
Outlawing motorbikes is an unreasonable burden on civil society. For, to be sure, there are actual positive arguments for riding motorbikes.

point 1.
Riding without a helmet is a selfish, costly act in that one may suffer an otherwise avoidable head injury which causes pain and suffering and financial ruin to one's family and increased cost to the helmet-wearing and non-motorbike riding public.
point 2.
Insisting that motorbike riders wear helmets is not, as 25 State Supreme Courts (read: NOT ME) have found, an overly burdensome act to the rights of civil society. And indeed there are no true arguments against it including an asanine 'freedom of choice.'

Originally Posted by PhilB

If you claim the right to decide what level of safety another person must take, don't be a bit surprised if someone else claims the same right over you. THERE is your double standard. You are reserving the right to engage in your choice of a dangerous activity, while arguing against respecting the rights of others to do the same.

I certainly am engaging in any double standard. You are mistaken in assuming that, should a law be passed in my locale outlawing motorbikes (a completely ridiculous assertion that you, and only you propose) I wouldn't abide by that law. And I tell you, sir, that I would either relocate or I would abide by such a ruling.

Of course this is total hogshyte and anyone who believed for a minute that motorbikes would be outlawed based on the standard of justification put forth by the state supreme courts is thicker than pigshit.

For what it's worth, your argument is a called a 'straw man' argument. You dislike one law and then you point out another law that is well nigh impossible and wave the flag of danger. It is worthless and fallacious and, even worse, might convince others. Please don't bring that line of reason up again.

[ttpete]

How about listing references for those 25 State Supreme Court decisions so we can look them up? I assume you have that data at hand, or you wouldn't have made the claim. Or are you just winging it?

[B.Curvin]

Shirley it is a troll. No one could be this delusional, or dare I say, stupid.

Good one Mr. Sands, you got us. Boy, you had me goin' there for a minute.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

This was the decision of 25 state Supreme Courts, not me. I.e, people smarter than you, likely smarter than the both of us. Stop making this an ad hominem attack. (look it up)

Apology accepted.




Why do you insist on ignoring that fact that wearing a helmet is the easiest way to mitigate these risks? Maybe because it isn't. Paying attention, Not riding impaired by drugs, alcohol, anger, lack of sleep... Is!

point 1.
Riding a motorbike is more dangerous than driving a car. No And does cost the non-motorbike riding public more money. No


\Blah blah blah
point 2.
Insisting that motorbike riders wear helmets is not, as 25 State Supreme Courts (read: NOT ME) have found, a overly burdensome act to the rights of civil society.

And here I thought that Marxists could count. They are more stupid than I previously thought.



Oh wait... That's right, their chief thinks there are 57 states.

[Kommando]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

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.

No no no. Automobiles are too dangerous. They cost society too much. We should walk or ride bicycles everywhere. I'm cool with that.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

This was the decision of 25 state Supreme Courts, not me. I.e, people smarter than you, likely smarter than the both of us.

Sharing your weird opinions does not make someone smart.

[atomicalex]

Originally Posted by DOGSROOT

Amethyst Initiative

Sign me up.

Originally Posted by PhilB

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.

Wow.

I used to work in a refinery that was attached to a paper mill. When someone died in the mill, we had to bury a roll of paper - there was no body as such to recover. The usual reason for death in the mill was failure to attach a line to the gantry. To explain: If you did not secure yourself to the scaffolding above the machinery, you could fall off of it and into the machines, or the pulper, or whatever you were working on. It may seem perfectly obvious to you and I that one should take the brief second to click that carabiner onto the steel, but for a surprisingly large number of people, the thought never occurs. Because "I will only be up there for a minute" or ""I can reach it no problem" or any number of other reasons. It's not just OSHA that sets those regs, it's the employers who have to pay out when an employee dies in a preventable accident, and then have to train new workers to that level of expertise. I fully assure you, that if someone you know died in a preventable industrial accident, you'd be clamouring for regs. I've seen the hardest-core non-union people turn on a dime when someone's hand got crushed in a press or someone fell on a slick surface or quite a few other such "accidents". "Someone should have done something to prevent that!!!" is the usual call to arms. Well, someone did do something: we call it OSHA.

Back to the traction control argument.....

Driving a large vehicle with a high center of gravity is more difficult than driving a small vehicle with a low center of gravity (GSA :P). In fact, the act of driving one of these vehicles could be said to be dangerous. In the case of the Ford Explorer and many other less-publicised cases, it was downright dangerous, and the general public said "there ought to be a law". However, rather than require better training or simply restricting the use of the vehicles, the government chose to err on the side of greater good - people can still have them - and instead make them easier to drive by mandating TC. So which slippery slope did you want to go down - the ban or significantly restrict the dangerous vehicles slope, or the mandate safety features slope?

Effectively, enforcement of CDL for driving all vehicles classified as "trucks" (hello PT Cruiser), or pay extra for TC and dumbed-down suspension and live with the restrictions it puts on use of the vehicle (no more srs muddin' in your family hauler).

Regardless of which way you go, you are going down a "slippery slope". Ironically, I could care less either way - I wear a helmet anyway, and I love to do trainings. So I would have my cake both ways. But hundred dollar helmets are far more accessible to the general public than thousand dollar training courses are. In the interest of raising the number of motorcyclists in the US, I'm comfortable with the less-expensive to the rider solution - the $100 helmet.

[Kommando]

Originally Posted by atomicalex

Sign me up.

Wow.

I used to work in a refinery that was attached to a paper mill. When someone died in the mill, we had to bury a roll of paper - there was no body as such to recover. The usual reason for death in the mill was failure to attach a line to the gantry. To explain: If you did not secure yourself to the scaffolding above the machinery, you could fall off of it and into the machines, or the pulper, or whatever you were working on. It may seem perfectly obvious to you and I that one should take the brief second to click that carabiner onto the steel, but for a surprisingly large number of people, the thought never occurs. Because "I will only be up there for a minute" or ""I can reach it no problem" or any number of other reasons. It's not just OSHA that sets those regs, it's the employers who have to pay out when an employee dies in a preventable accident, and then have to train new workers to that level of expertise. I fully assure you, that if someone you know died in a preventable industrial accident, you'd be clamouring for regs. I've seen the hardest-core non-union people turn on a dime when someone's hand got crushed in a press or someone fell on a slick surface or quite a few other such "accidents". "Someone should have done something to prevent that!!!" is the usual call to arms. Well, someone did do something: we call it OSHA.

Back to the traction control argument.....

Driving a large vehicle with a high center of gravity is more difficult than driving a small vehicle with a low center of gravity (GSA :P). In fact, the act of driving one of these vehicles could be said to be dangerous. In the case of the Ford Explorer and many other less-publicised cases, it was downright dangerous, and the general public said "there ought to be a law". However, rather than require better training or simply restricting the use of the vehicles, the government chose to err on the side of greater good - people can still have them - and instead make them easier to drive by mandating TC. So which slippery slope did you want to go down - the ban or significantly restrict the dangerous vehicles slope, or the mandate safety features slope?

Effectively, enforcement of CDL for driving all vehicles classified as "trucks" (hello PT Cruiser), or pay extra for TC and dumbed-down suspension and live with the restrictions it puts on use of the vehicle (no more srs muddin' in your family hauler).

Regardless of which way you go, you are going down a "slippery slope". Ironically, I could care less either way - I wear a helmet anyway, and I love to do trainings. So I would have my cake both ways. But hundred dollar helmets are far more accessible to the general public than thousand dollar training courses are. In the interest of raising the number of motorcyclists in the US, I'm comfortable with the less-expensive to the rider solution - the $100 helmet.

Rider courses around here don't typically cost anywhere near $1000. In Illinois, they were free. Not everybody clamors for regs after somebody else does something stupid either. That may be how things are done in Germany, but many people in this country prefer considerably less government involvement in their lives. These people tend to be the part of the population who can think for themselves and don't have to believe everything that marketing campaigns tell them.

[atomicalex]

Considering that I've lived most of my life in the States, I would say that I have plenty of experience with how Americans react to things. Most being 40+ years, in five states, and six SMSAs. With three states' worth of driver's licenses to go with my shiny German one. Due to work, I've had the pleasure of working in industrial settings in about 45 states.

A basic rider course is very nominally priced. A rider course that would be comparable to a CDL is not. Last time I looked at CDL schools, a course was running around $3500, comparable to a week of Superbike school or Skip Barber for the car peeps. It's almost twice what I paid for my German license. Name me one soccer mom who is going to pony up that kind of bread, time and hassle to drive an SUV.

So, which slippery slope did you pick, anyway?

[Kommando]

Originally Posted by atomicalex

Considering that I've lived most of my life in the States, I would say that I have plenty of experience with how Americans react to things. Most being 40+ years, in five states, and six SMSAs. With three states' worth of driver's licenses to go with my shiny German one. Due to work, I've had the pleasure of working in industrial settings in about 45 states.

A basic rider course is very nominally priced. A rider course that would be comparable to a CDL is not. Last time I looked at CDL schools, a course was running around $3500, comparable to a week of Superbike school or Skip Barber for the car peeps. It's almost twice what I paid for my German license. Name me one soccer mom who is going to pony up that kind of bread, time and hassle to drive an SUV.

So, which slippery slope did you pick, anyway?

Who cares? To most of us freedom-proponent Americans, people like you appear to be brainwashed to the German way of doing things...make a law for every little issue in society. Unfortunately, due to relentless fear-mongering, a number of Americans now seem to have a similar mindset.

There are different ways to accomplish the same objective. Throwing away more and more freedom in this country is NOT the answer. Many people have died (violent deaths ahead of their time) to secure the few freedoms we have left, as well as the ones we've already lost, and the precedent of fear-manipulated citizens so easily relinquishing former freedoms has endangered the rest of our freedoms. We are now "less American" for it, with fear mongers leading the way.

[ttpete]

Originally Posted by atomicalex

Back to the traction control argument.....

Driving a large vehicle with a high center of gravity is more difficult than driving a small vehicle with a low center of gravity (GSA :P). In fact, the act of driving one of these vehicles could be said to be dangerous. In the case of the Ford Explorer and many other less-publicised cases, it was downright dangerous, and the general public said "there ought to be a law". However, rather than require better training or simply restricting the use of the vehicles, the government chose to err on the side of greater good - people can still have them - and instead make them easier to drive by mandating TC. So which slippery slope did you want to go down - the ban or significantly restrict the dangerous vehicles slope, or the mandate safety features slope?

Effectively, enforcement of CDL for driving all vehicles classified as "trucks" (hello PT Cruiser), or pay extra for TC and dumbed-down suspension and live with the restrictions it puts on use of the vehicle (no more srs muddin' in your family hauler).

Regardless of which way you go, you are going down a "slippery slope". Ironically, I could care less either way - I wear a helmet anyway, and I love to do trainings. So I would have my cake both ways. But hundred dollar helmets are far more accessible to the general public than thousand dollar training courses are. In the interest of raising the number of motorcyclists in the US, I'm comfortable with the less-expensive to the rider solution - the $100 helmet.

I just sold a Ford E-350 van with a 4WD conversion and a 6" suspension lift. It had a higher CG than any of the SUVs you're referring to, and I never came close to having a problem with it. Traction control would have done nothing for stability, and would have been a PITA that limited the usefulness of the vehicle.

I think you're falling into the Euro mindset that everything should be designed with the least intelligent beings in mind and therefore will be completely safe. The reason we're seeing vehicles on their roof is simple. People aren't paying attention to their driving, and tend to try to avoid a collision by swerving hard at the last instant. SUVs aren't the only vehicles that end up upside down. We regularly see ordinary sedans on their roofs as well, even on dry straight roads with the sun shining. What's needed is higher standards for licensing, similar to those in Germany. We have a driver problem, not a vehicle problem. And we need to absolutely prohibit the use of cell phones and texting in moving vehicles. Distracted driving needs to be an offense that is treated the same as reckless driving or drunk driving. I'd be in favor of confiscating the driver's license and tags of a violator along with their phone and towing the vehicle to impound, then notifying their insurance company. Trial and sentencing would come later.

$100 helmets of today are the equivalent of $10 helmets available 50 years ago. No thanks. Mine cost more and are of far better quality.

[atomicalex]

Wow, that's ad hominem and a straw man all in one. Claiming that there is a "euro mindset" is just as accurate as claiming there is a uniform "American" mindset. There isn't.

Laugh all you want at Germany, but every single car, truck, and motorcycle that is sold in most of the world is brought here for testing. It's the only place you can do some of it. I consider speed limits a personal liberty infringement - but most Americans accept them blindly.

Regarding OSHA, if you think OSHA makes the US a "nanny state", look around you and think for a bit about what dangers you are not faced with today. there is no comparison.

[BobbySands]

Near every OSHA reg is written in blood. Behind every helmet law is a lot of emotional suffering and terrble, avoidable injuries.

Anyone who does not understand that--simply put-- does not want to understand that.



P.S.
Whoever it was who said that German vehicles are designed with the dumbest people in mind has clearly never owned a vehicle made in Munich.

But I do appreciate the laugh.

[ttpete]

Originally Posted by atomicalex

Wow, that's ad hominem and a straw man all in one. Claiming that there is a "euro mindset" is just as accurate as claiming there is a uniform "American" mindset. There isn't.

Laugh all you want at Germany, but every single car, truck, and motorcycle that is sold in most of the world is brought here for testing. It's the only place you can do some of it. I consider speed limits a personal liberty infringement - but most Americans accept them blindly.

Regarding OSHA, if you think OSHA makes the US a "nanny state", look around you and think for a bit about what dangers you are not faced with today. there is no comparison.

Everything in and on a German motor vehicle has to sport a TUV stamp, and that's nanny state crap at its worst. It stifles individuality. I have no use for Socialism.

I never addressed OSHA, but I have no problem with it.

Americans accepting speed limits blindly is a bit far-fetched. When you get back, take a Sunday morning ride to Lansing on I-96. I usually run 80-85, and there are many people passing me at 90-95 or better.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

Behind every helmet law is a lot of emotional suffering and terrble, avoidable injuries.

As is behind everyone who doesn't want beloved ones to ride a motorcycle at all. Face it.

Originally Posted by atomicalex

Laugh all you want at Germany, but every single car, truck, and motorcycle that is sold in most of the world is brought here for testing. It's the only place you can do some of it. I consider speed limits a personal liberty infringement - but most Americans accept them blindly.

First, that's not the achievement of a free mindset, but of a powerful automobile lobby. Second, while wearing a helmet or not is no one elses fucking business than the rider's, there's at least a theoretical possibility to do harm to other people by driving fast.

And third, of course there are Germans who are not happy with the German mindset. Some of us really adore the americon love for freedom. But still, there are these differences in how people here and there think. On a German forum this discussion would be completely different and everyone standing up for such a personal freedom would be flamed harshly. That's not good, but it is a fact.