Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   MO Reader Feedback (
-   -   ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback (

Abe_Froman 08-20-2002 06:13 PM

Re: Bunch of Liberal double talk
Let us say this: thought the politicos of the time had different ideas on how the constutition should be written, their chief issue was a general wariness of government. The argument was exactly how said government should be kept within its bounds and the best way to safeguard the liberties of the people. Can anyone imagine any one of the founders, who were pretty much universally fed up with their subservient role to the king, endorsing our current near-socialist state?

I also don't see how the different realities of the 21st century should case the role of government to be any different. As I've argued before, the chief role of a morally legitimate government (meaning that which is not tyranny) is to preserve the liberty of the people. To that end, the constitution contains the rules needed to realize that ideal. Certainly, in the past, and currently in different ways, those ideals were and are imperfectly realized, yet they are still right there in the text.

dwr461 08-20-2002 06:18 PM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
Have you looked at the Vanson Breeze jacket for July and August? I always wear my leather jacket here in southern Louisiana.

Take Care,


vmarsch 08-20-2002 07:15 PM

Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction
What a load of manure. Yeah, things were perfect back in 18th century, when people were perfectly free to do anything they wanted (unless they were women or negroes or didn't own land). What hokum. Here's some news for those of you living in Post-Colonial Fantasy Land: we're not going back, and it never existed in the first place. Let's face it: you and the vast majority of the libertarian whiners in this country have never, ever been "screwed out of their important constitutional freedoms," or anything remotely resembling.

The reason we have helmet laws is because risk in our society is distributed, through issuance of insurance policies and government subsidy. If your house were destroyed by flood or natural disaster, you'd gladly accept government aid to help you rebuild. If medicaid or medicare paid for you're new liver, I'm sure I wouldn't hear you complain about the violation of your constitutional freedom to die of liver disease. If the bank where you keep your money fails, I'm sure you'll take the FDIC money, too.

Helmet laws save the lives of reckless young people. If you feel that this is unnecessary tampering with the evolutionary process to save their lives despite their whims and hormones, then I suppose you just value human life less than I do.

The only peope hurt by helmet laws are those who make a living in taking valuable organs from young, dead people, and placing them in the bodies of rich, old people. To heck with them, and to heck with so-called "individualists" who don't have enough perspective to know what the difference is between loss of an "important constitutional freedom" and what is obviously good public policy.%0"#ff

rhust 08-20-2002 10:16 PM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
After 206 post this will prolly be lost in the shuffle, but what the hell - here I go. The deal with helmets is what's basically wrong with the rest of things - accountability. You wanna ride without a helmet? Great. You wanna ride with a helmet? Great. But, instead of mandatory helmet laws there should be a law that says if you didn't wear a helmet and got in a crash that you've decided to waive your right to any insurance or future help based on that fact. Kind of like a DNR - Do Not Rescussitate (sp), but for those who wanted to go with the freedom of no helmet. Yes, I think those who ride without helmets are squids. Just like I think those who ride in cars and willing don't wear seatbelts are squids, but laws should be about accountability - not about oppression. But people should be willing to reap what they sow. So go out and enjoy the wind in your hair and the bugs in your eyes - just don't expect me to pay higher insurance costs when your brainpan becomes the next stain on the road. Just suck it up (or suck on the respirator) and deal with it.

Jexter 08-21-2002 12:51 AM

Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction
I can't speak for people further up in this thread, but I don't WANT my life saved by a law (unless I were a minor and couldn't decide). I would much rather have the choice than not, knowing the risks involved.

Jexter 08-21-2002 01:52 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
>>Sheesh. I'm sure you complain just as vociferously about all the other 1.7 million "laws" which curb our liberty.>Do you wear your seatbelt in your car ? Whoa there fella ! You're throwing away your freedoms. I'm sure you'll make sure your kids are also jumping around the front seat of the car without seatbelts, lest they contribute to the opression by our government. >When I put on my helmet, I certainly don't feel like I'm being opressed by the public. I do, however, feel like I have a much better chance at surviving a crash without major head trauma. >Guarantee me that I won't in some way contribute financially to rescuing a guy who's turned his brain into mush due to lack of helmet use, and I'll never say another word about helmet laws. <<

Well, you shouldn't have to unwillingly contribute to people who've done dumb stuff to vegetate themselves. But I CAN pretty much guarantee that that guy without a helmet is much less likely to turn you or somebody else into a, um, vegetable.

lu955i 08-21-2002 03:44 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
I think if you read some of these posts you'll come to the conclusion that our situation has to do with definition.

We all use words incorrectly everyday. Misinterpreting the true definition of a word like "free". If you look up the word, you'll see what I mean. We aren't, nor have we ever been close to "free" by definition. That's ok because neither has any other country for that matter. It is impossible, there will always be a limitation of some sort. My biggest gripe isn't the lack of being free. Its the fact that we think we are.

We have to give out so much personal information to get any "privilege" in this country. No I'm not talking about government. Even past that point. I'm talking about retail. We have excepted certain things to the point that we will give anyone access to our lives (on paper) so that we might get a free movie rental? The now popular "discount members card" being offered everywhere from Petco to your local grocery store is prime example that we have become complacent with restriction. In exchange for marketing info they give you 10%. The same people will complain about junk mail, telemarketing and heaven forbid spam. We say everyday "ok that's not a bad deal'. Ill give this up for that. If people allow it, then they shouldn't complain about it. Even if we didn't agree but yet we said nothing. Silence is approval.

So don't kid yourself we aren't "free" by any stretch of the imagination.

lu955i 08-21-2002 03:46 AM

loosen up the noose eh?
We could stand to loosen up the noose a little and let people have a chance to be responsible. For example in Europe's autobahn there is a suggested speed limit. You will not be ticketed for ignoring it. However your insurance will not cover an accident above the suggested speed limit. So you have a bit more privilege in that situation to judge your own ability.

BBD_Racing 08-21-2002 04:53 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

The most interesting thing about this is that the MO readers write, on average, more logical and lucid posts than John does.

Sorry JB, stick to humor. You are better at it than this sort of thing.

danch 08-21-2002 04:58 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
Yup! 'Traditional' doesn't mean entirely stupid. Just different ideas about what's important about a bike.

Cool helmet

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 AM.