Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > AMA Racing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-29-2002, 02:31 AM   #31
yzf1070
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 51
Default Re: If you don't wear a Full Face Helmet and Protective Gear you are an Organ Donor

While you may be correct that your risk of dying from a head injury during a motorcycle accident is rather high should you choose not to wear a helmet, that still does not give you, or anyone else for that matter, the right to force me to wear one. You do have every right to spread the word, and educate people on the merits of helmet use, and this I encourage because I wear my helmet about 85% of the time and it has already saved my ass once. But when you jump up on your high horse and start saying that the AMA has lost all crediblity because they refuse to support mandatory helmet laws, I must infer that you are completely ignorant to all the good the AMA does for us as motorcyclists. All you need do is read one issue of American Motorcyclist (A monthly mag you get as an AMA member) and you will see that the AMA does alot more than fight to abolish helmet laws. Not to mention I can't recall ever seeing a picture of a motorcyclist sans helmet within the covers of this periodical. Therefore it's not as though the AMA is promoting helmetless riding. Rather, like the founders of our great nation, who stood up for their freedoms against english rule, they simply are fighting for our freedoms as motorcyclists, our right to choose! If we make the concession that in order to operate our motorcycles on federal funded roads we all must wear helmets, what's to stop them from saying, "You know what? A helmet is not enough, now you need to have four wheels and side imact protection in order to legaly operate on our federal funded highways."? After all having four wheels and side impact protection is far safer than two wheels and a helmet right? So lets stop the anecdotal BS that we've all heard about a trillion times, about my girlfriend the nurse, and I know this guy who was hit by a 747 and then attacked by a pack of rabid pit bulls but because he was wearing his gear he was fine just lost two eye lashes! And get down to the root of the matter, our right as Americans to make our own choices right wrong or indifferent. Don't down the AMA based on your ignorant understanding of one of it's many political stances. Educate yourself then exercise your own right to make a choice. But please remember to allow others to make their own choices as well.





AMA#416765
yzf1070 is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 07-29-2002, 04:18 AM   #32
DJS
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 67
Default I love helmet law debates

You know, if the government made condoms mandatory while doing the wild thing it would reduce STD's and reduce the cost of health insurance.



If the government outlawed biggie sized double quarter pounder meals then I bet that would lower health insurance more.



Sorry, helmets should be worn but should not be law. The government has no business regulating personal choices. Now I would be all for insurance companies creating a "no helmet, no pay for accident" rule.



David

DJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 04:21 AM   #33
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: take responsibility for ourselves

I think the AMA is correct in asking the government to do the study. If the AMA funded and implemented the study, most people would probably write it off as biased propoganda. But if the government does the study, then the AMA has a better chance of using the results from the study to convince the government to move ahead with making important improvements to motorcycle safety.



Example? Some states (like update NY and CT) are (mostly) pretty good about posting signs that warn motorcyclists of motorcycle-specific hazards, like rutted pavement during construction, etc. Here in NJ, I've had the joy of experiencing such fun as pavement that is permanently grooved, but only for the steeply inclined twisty stuff (makes it easier for cars to get up the hill during foul weather, but it's a year-round hazard for bikes), and a mid-corner pavement-to-gravel transition (both unmarked, of course).



Anyhow, my point is that if the AMA can convince the government to force civil engineers who build roadways to be more motorcycle conscious... that's a good thing.

das is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 04:35 AM   #34
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: Some ideas and the cruiser guys won't be happy

No, they are not safer. Even with all the added safety features in cars head injuries are still the leading cause of death. Longride is correct. The same logic that allows the govt to force bikers to wear helmets also justifies forcing car drivers to wear helmets.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 04:53 AM   #35
jmeyn
Founding Member
 
jmeyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Default This is a No-Brainer

With small membership, the AMA must protect the little clout it has. The state has full support from voters for protecting them from slipping on the brain matter of irresponsible bikers and being forced to pay for the messy cleanup.



Forgive the gross pun in the title.
jmeyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 04:55 AM   #36
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default Re: I love helmet law debates

"Now I would be all for insurance companies creating a "no helmet, no pay for accident" rule."



David, I believe you really need to think of the ramifications of such a law. So you would say unsafe sex, no pay for STD's? Cancer, you smoked, no pay? Overweight and bad diet, heart attack, no pay? I guess you get the idea. Giving the insurance companies the "green light" to refuse payment is a can of worms I think need not be opened personally. Maybe you disagree.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 04:57 AM   #37
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: If you don't wear a Full Face Helmet and Protective Gear you are an Organ Donor

Your logic, that personal behavior that results in increased insurance or health care costs to others justifies government intervention, is an open ended sort of logic. That sort of logic can be (and has been used) to justify the government regulation of everything, since it is almost impossible to engage in ANY activity that does not have the potential for personal injury. This sort of logic is slowly creating a society where the govt regulates everything. Is that what you want? Where would it stop?



More than once the EPA has attempted to enact legislation that would force everyone to turn in all cars built before 1975, without compensation. Luckily for us many Congresscritters are Classic Cars owners and so this idea has never gotten off the ground. But, this is a good example of just how totalitarian the govt has become.



Rolling Hills, Ca. now has an ordinance that bans people smoking in their own backyards, since a neighbor might get a whiff of it (they conveniently ignore the tons of nerve gas spewed by their Lincoln Navigators). How far do we want this fascism to go? Are we this much of a society of weeping cowards now?



Even the Nazi's murders of the Jews were all done in the name of "public safety", since the Jews were labelled a public menace. (Interestingly Hitler's Germany was the first nation to enact anti-smoking laws to protect the "public health".) This example is only to show how far one can go with this, not because I think the US Govt is the same as the Nazis were.



The only "logical" solution to motorcylce safety that the govt would finally come up with would be to ban them completely. I'd rather see the govt as far away from us bikers as possible.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 05:15 AM   #38
luvmyvfr
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: The big difference between the NRA and AMA

Wow!



Darwin failed twice! Better be careful. Third times the charm.



luvmyvfr
luvmyvfr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 05:24 AM   #39
jmeyn
Founding Member
 
jmeyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Default Re: I love helmet law debates

I agree with David. I don't want to pay for the cost of insuring irresponsible riders.
jmeyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2002, 05:42 AM   #40
Poser
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 238
Default Mandate SUVs

Let's wear full face helmets inside Lincoln Navigators. That would be SAFE. The government, in the interest of public safety, should REQUIRE all persons entering the public right-of-way to be encased in no less than 4500 pounds of steel, wearing no less than a six point harness, and a crash helmet that has a straw opening so that you can still use the cup holders.



That should solve all our problems as a society and as a species.
Poser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off