Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Help! (
-   -   Helmet Law Repeal Stats (

Abe_Froman 02-10-2001 04:47 PM

No way Dude!!
Tell me how, exactly, the fifth amendment is alive and well, if hundreds, or thousands, of unborn people are being denied their lives every day without due process of law? (Don't even bother replying to that. I'm not going to get into it, I'm just making a point.)

How is the second amendment alive and well if we have hundreds of laws throughout the country that amount to prior restraint on an explicit, unalienable right? How could we be disarmed in many places? I think I gave you ample evidence on the opinions of the men who wrote the amendment. The second amendment is being grievously violated every day.

The freedom from torture and police harrasment has been explicitly enumerated in the constitution since the adoption of the original bill of rights. There certainly have been cases where these rights were violated, such as in the case of Elian Gonzales, and thousands of others in the history of this country. We live in a sinful world.

To the contrary, an activist court does not rule on the "law". It "usurps" the law, rendering the law meaningless. See qoute by Thomas Jefferson:

"Let there be no change by usurpation, for that is the customary method by which free governments are destroyed."

If the law is an elastic guideline that can be conformed to any idea or opinion, then what is the point of going to law school? You can argue anything you want, and that's what the law will mean.

Abe_Froman 02-10-2001 04:50 PM

By the way....
This isn't, of course, directed only at you, Gabe, but have we officially gotten rid of the Squids? Not a one has posted on this topic.

badger 02-10-2001 05:03 PM

Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats
The band on dark face shield is the result of riders using them at night. If we do thing that look dangers and or stupid, then the non-riding majority will pass laws to stop us.

badger 02-10-2001 05:18 PM

Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats
Cars are required to have safety glass, seat belts and airbags. Boats are required to have life vest. But when the state tries to require helmets, it becomes an issue of personnel freedom? What is it about riding a bike that makes it your personnel freedom to endanger yourself and other?

I was riding behind a guy that did not have a helmet on, when he suddenly cut to the right and pulled an emergence stop (cutting me off and forcing me off the road). The problem was he got hit in the face by something that was through up by the truck in front of him.

motorpsyche 02-10-2001 10:40 PM

Dan. I do appreciate the response. It was professional and didn't contain any personal attacks. Top notch all the way. As for the data you are referring to, you are correct as far as the data presented goes. However, when dealing with fatalities alone, the data does not include post mortem analyses that conclusively show that death was directly due to head trauma. More data such as days hospitalized and treatment costs would be a much better use of time in number crunching and would probably do a better job of assessing the direct effects of not wearing helmets. However, hairs can be split ad infinitum when looking at data and making inferences as the the intent of researchers. I respect your efforts in trying to illuminate the problems with ways in which data is collected and reported regarding this issue. If more people would do some legwork such as you have done regarding this issue, a lot of learning would take place. However, I stand by my original thought that instead of focusing on facts and figures obtained for statistical analyses, more focus should be placed on the "immutable laws of physics". I'm glad to hear you ride with a helmet too. May we not become insignificant statistics.

uncleron 02-11-2001 04:01 AM

Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats
There is a big difference between equipment required for a vehicle (such as safety glass) and forcing an individual to use a potentially dangerous device. Your example of the helmetless rider in front of you speaks more to that rider's ability (or lack thereof) to control the bike when the unexpected happens than it does about helmet use.

If you get into a potentially dangerous situation on a bike, it is your skill and experience that will get you out; not whether or not you are wearing a helmet. I, as an experienced rider, am far more qualified to decide whether I should wear a helmet or not than a bunch of old white guys in the state capitol who have never been on a motorcycle.

If you allow the state to force you to wear a helmet, what is next? Leg protectors? Horse power limits? Air bags? An all out ban on motorcycles because someone might get hurt?

Gabe 02-11-2001 08:27 AM

Re: By the way....
Well, I think we're probably the only ones reading this...It's not very motorcycle related and probably kind of boring.

Gabe 02-11-2001 01:08 PM

Re: Here we go....
OK, I did overestimate the number of children under 18 who live in poverty. The actual number is 12.7 million, according to 1998 census bureau figures.

I'm sure you'll discount those figures out of hand, again because of your Rush Limbaugh-fueled assumptions and misconceptions. Just becuase you don't see poverty on TV or in suburban Minnesota doesn't mean it isn't real. I suggeset you do some volunteer work for homeless people to get a more (to quote our president) "akk-arit" picture.

You seem to think all our social problems can be solved via "thousand points of light" private charity. I assure you, they cannot, no more than can private industry build a Space Shuttle, the Golden Gate Bridge, or win World War II. tHe non-profits that I have worked for are uniformly understaffed, underfunded, and overwhelmed by demand for their services they can't handle.

Do I feel "enlightened"? Sometimes I do. When I see homeless families and widespread poverty in my city full of $800,000 studio condos and Range Rovers, I wonder how these people can be so selfish, greedy, and self-absorbed. How much money do you need to to feel good about yourself?

So am I "prejudiced" against rich people? Well, I come from an upper-middle class background, which makes me realize how stupid and undeserving a lot of these folks are. Just as stupid, lazy and undeserving as many poor people, in fact.

Why don't we see COPS from suburban Connecticut? Rich people commit crime, and white-collar crime is far more costly and destructive than violent crime. Rich folks are just less likely to be prosecuted. Does that mean they are "better"?

Your argument is disturbing- If people are poor because they are doing something to make themselves poor, and if a much higher percentage of black and latino people are poor, than the logical conclusion (of your argument) is that white people are innately superior to other ethnic groups, in which case the natural social order is for whites to be the "master" of all the other races. But man, that sounds familiar. Who said that first? Wasn't it some german guy? I can't remember- oh yeah! Adolf something-or-other.

No, government anti-poverty programs cannot solve all our problems, and probably never will. But life would be much, much worse for millions of people without them. Life in the 19th and early 20th century were overwhelmingly worse for poor folks- crime, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, abortion, divorce, and malnutrition were much more severe than now.

I've worked a lot with poor people, and all I can do is reccomend you do the same, and talk to me about social problems then.

Sport-Tourer 02-11-2001 08:32 PM

Re: Helmet Law Repeal Stats
Blip- It was refreshing to read the arguements/rebuttals on both sides of this issue without alot of flaming from the anonymous crowd. A "tip of the hat" to Gabe for enlightening us on the "mechanics" of the Supreme Courts decisions granting states the right to choose. But, in reading this sampling of opinions, while most of us choose to wear helmets, we do respect the individuals rights to choose for himself. As Abe Froman cited "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." It seems somewhat ironic our lawmakers will pass laws to keep us from victimizing ourselves, yet won't adopt a federal drivers training/safety program to ensure we ourselves aren't being victimized as we drive this nations highways. The requirements/training to become a licensed driver in the US vary drastically from state to state, with NO required recurrent training whatsoever. If legislators really wanted to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities you'd think they'd have a better plan to reduce accidents instead of better equipping ourselves in the likely event we'll have one.

LimeSqueezr 02-12-2001 05:56 AM

And if you want to see them squirm and lie...
ask them "Do you know for a fact he was straight and sober at the time?" too. Most of those storytellers won't admit the truth on that one.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM.