Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Help!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2001, 10:31 AM   #101
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Not everyone.

There ARE those people that understand that not one thing you mentioned is an area that the government is licensed, under the constitution, to regulate. Not everyone wants these things from government. Some want to provide these things for themselves, and enjoy the freedom afforded from having the government leave them alone. As Tom has said, in America, there is virtue in erring on the side of personal freedom.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 02-09-2001, 10:35 AM   #102
stevegrab
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 368
Default Re: Thanks Dan!

Hey Abe, the government does not "point a gun at them and tell them to put on their helmet. " They simply pass a law making it illegal to ride without a helmet. I'm pretty sure the penalty is not instant murder of the individual. If they want to ride without a helmet fine. They may even get away with doing it for some time without getting a ticket.



Does anybody know if the helmet laws in most/any states are written like the seatbelt laws? Where the police cannot ticket you for simply not abiding by that law? They must have stopped you (or even sighted you) for some other offense. Kind of like insurance, they can't just pull you over and check.



I understand that those two are quite different from the helmet law, because an officer could immediately see you're not wearing one (unlike a seat belt which is harder to determine visually, or insurance which is impossible.)
stevegrab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 10:40 AM   #103
CYCLE_MONKEY
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 154
Default Re: An example of "freedom"-from-helmet groups

I went to the link myself. What a load of sh*t. I even e-mailed them and flamed them on their lies and misinformation. I told them that while I'll defend the rights of fellow bikers to have the freedom of choice, the "articles" and "studies" on their site were blatant bullsh*t. "Sim-sickness" from the weight of wearing a helmet? Ridiculous. Broken necks from wearing a helmet? Maybe, but at those g-loadings, without the helmet the head would be squashed like a melon, so it's irrelevant. So basically I told them, while I'll defend the right to ride free, I'm 110% against their chosen path of lies and deceit.
CYCLE_MONKEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 10:47 AM   #104
stevegrab
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 368
Default Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats

Brent, why do you say that? Do you mean a larger percentage than average will be MO readers? If so I'd like to know what makes you think your readers are more likely to be killed than others.



stevegrab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:19 AM   #105
jbfd
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9
Default Re: GRRRRR....

I must be missing something here. If not I cannot take you seriously with a statement like: "I certainly don't want to be the one full-face geek on the street."



Are you really that concerned about how you look compared to everyone else? If everyone else rode naked would you?
jbfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:20 AM   #106
jbfd
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9
Default Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats

Took the words right outa my mouth.....
jbfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:27 AM   #107
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Ummmm.... Yeah......

I'mmm going to have to go ahead and sort of..... disagree with you there? He's been real flakey lately, and I don't think he's the kind of person we want for upper management.....



Seriously, requiring people to disclose all their personal information before being allowed to ride would amount to prior restraint, not to mention the fact that government has no right to know. I don't want the government knowing any more than they have to about me, even if they know pretty much everything already anyway.



This is a touchy situation for conservatives. Liberals have no problem here. More laws, more regulations, less freedom, easy solution. Government has no place providing health care for anyone. But denying care to a dying person amounts to murder (although, given some of their other positions, i.e. abortion, even this wouldn't be much of a stretch for a liberal). I have two general feelings on the solution to the problem:



#1. The financial responsibility for providing the poor with health care should fall on those that would freely donate their resources to help. I think privately owned foundations could have a role in the collection and disbursement of funds to hospitals for the settlement of debts owed by the poor. Notice I didn't say "uninsured". I think it should simply be assumed that if and when the patient makes a full recovery, and is able to continue working, he/she will be expected to work off the debt that they owe. This is the price to pay for involving one's self in dangerous activites, such as riding the New York subway, without the benefit of insurance. Even if you make $75,000 a year, if you also owe a $400,000 hospital bill, you're poor. At least for a good long while.



#2: Doctors have chosen as their profession a line of work that is difficult, expensive to learn, and highly financially rewarding. It is also a basic need of humans that wish to prolong their lives and reduce suffering. This second consideration means that normal economic rules may not apply. Just as the Hippocratic Oath commands the doctor to "consider the benefit of my patients", the doctor must know that he has put himself in a position to help people that he knows cannot repay him. Every attempt can and must be made by the patient to settle the debt, but in some cases, the doctor (and hospital) must be prepared to incur the cost. It's either that, or let someone suffer or die.



On the flip side, if it can be proved that government had a hand in creating the unsafe environment, it should be possible to gain a monetary settlement from government. If I'm shot by some thug in the food court in the Megamall here in the suburbs of Minneapolis, I should be able to sue the city of Bloomington or Hennepin County for refusing to allow me to protect myself (carry a firearm).
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:29 AM   #108
DataDan
Founding Member
 
DataDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 117
Default Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats

You're right. Annual cage (car and light truck) deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled dropped from 1.32 in 1998 to 1.30 in 1999, a continuation of a long-term declining trend. But motorcycle deaths per 100MVMT increased from 22.31 in '98 to 23.36 in '99, a reversal, begun in '98, of a long-term declining trend.


I don't find the increase acceptable in any sense. My answer to Tuba's question points out that the NHTSA evaluation dramatically overstates reality, presumably to heat their pitch for helmet laws and against repeal. They seem to be singing along with Professor Harold Hill: "We got trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for rePeal!"


With little data to back it up, my feeling is that motorcycling is experiencing growing pains. Registrations nationwide increased 7% in 1999 compared to 2% for cages. That means a higher percentage of new riders and more newbie risk than in the early- and mid-'90s when registrations were actually declining.
DataDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:38 AM   #109
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default No, it shouldn't.

The constitution was not written to aquiesce to the changing whims of society.



"The Constitution is a written insturment. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."



--United States Supreme Court, South Carolina vs. United States, 1905
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2001, 11:45 AM   #110
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default No problem...

The premium on helmetless riding is not a solution to the problem of public expense, but a viable option for insurance companies frought with inflated health claims due to helmetless motorcyclists. With respect to your comment about abiding by the terms of your policy.... This already happens all the time, the insurance companies know about it. I have even been offered lower premiums by an agent for stipulating that I would not ride to work, all the while the agent telling me that it didn't matter. I could ride wherever, whenever I wanted to, including to work.
Abe_Froman 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