Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-19-2002, 05:51 PM   #31
danch
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Misfortune, I'm willing to pay for. Stupidity, no. Of course there's also the case of the stupidity of others causing the misfortune. Maybe cell phone abusers should pay in a couple G a year to an insurance fund for the victims of the accidents they cause.
danch is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 08-19-2002, 05:55 PM   #32
zx10danny1
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Two months after buying my first motorcycle I wrecked. My own fault. I was wearing a helmet though. And after the nurse finished scrubbing the rocks from my left arm I vowed to only ride wearing "good" motorcycle gear. I wasn't at the time. If it's too hot or too much trouble, I don't ride.



Fast forward 16 years, and I'm involved in my second accident. This time, I get up, take off all of my gear and think, "damn that was stupid!" And that was the extent of any bodily injuries. Bruised pride.



The common denominator in my history were both accidents involved me hitting the ground head first. Both were low sides, followed by a face plant. A helmet prevented me from being a vegetable.



I think anyone that wants to go without a helmet should be required to tend to a brain damaged person. Spend a few days feeding them through a tube, changing their diaper and bathing them. I know someone like this. It's not pleasant to see or be near.



Dieing is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Think about your family. Think about other people having to care for you.



It's just a motorcycle ride. It's NOT a life or death decision. At least it's not supposed to be. Something as simple as putting on a helmet lets you ride another day, and another, and another.



The reason I'm not an AMA member is the same as JB. I can't believe they would waste their members money on a fight that's not worth winning.
zx10danny1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 05:57 PM   #33
johnnyb
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,597
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Dang, and to think I though all that stuff was racism. I had no idea the Sierra Club was out to slaughter Jews and Cambodians! Thanks for the headsup Seruzawa. Um, you got guns?
johnnyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 05:57 PM   #34
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

It seems that you are clamoring for more and more things to be banned. The philosphical underpinning of our (original) form of government is that the chief role of the state is to protect our liberty, not our physical safety ("give me liberty or give me death" comes to mind.)



Without groups like the AMA and the NRA (and citizens in general) making a racket when some schmuck in office tries to torment us for our own good, we would be much further down the line to subservience than we already are. Should we simply roll over and line up as sheep to be shorn of our liberty?



That said, my main problem is the federal government sticking their nose into all this stuff. While I don't agree with helmet laws and cell phone laws (and most of the other ones either) at least, when a state passes one, it is constitutional via the tenth amendment. Most federal laws strip the states of their constitutional rights ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") If the people of a particular state want their bureaucracy to manage their lives, so be it----you can always move.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:00 PM   #35
johnnyb
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,597
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Go away. Nobody has those figures including you.
johnnyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:01 PM   #36
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

This is precisely why our government is a representative constitutional republic, and not a straight democracy. When "the majority rules" above all else, they might get the wrong idea and pass a referendum that is in contradiction to the constitution. That, theoretically, is where the representatives are to step in and thwart the will of their constituents, thereby protecting their freedom (even if they don't want it.)
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:01 PM   #37
danch
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

Car people don't have to wear helmets because the automotive industry has been forced to make their vehicles into protective devices for the last 40 years or so. Our national highway safety policy has been "Oh, christ! These people are such morons that we'll never get them to drive safely. We'll just make sure that when they crash, they'll live through it." Naturally, this is bad for motorcyclists: cagers get the 'volvo' mentality of "I'm perfectly safe in my little cage, so I don't have to pay attention to the world around me." Which just might be our national philosophy, now that I think of it.
danch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:05 PM   #38
danch
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Default Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback

No, that's the job of the supreme court. The representatives are there to make the unconstitutional laws that their inbred constituents are asking for. Or that their backing corporations are asking for. Or that their cross-dressing FBI chief is asking for.



Checks and Balances, and all that.
danch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:09 PM   #39
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Democrats and Socialists......

I fail to see the problem with the slippery slope argument. It is exactly how we have come to this point with the helmet law in the first place. When was the last time you heard **** Gephardt or Tom Dascle argue that taxes are too high? That the children are finally being fed? That the poor are finally unpoor? That the farmers are doing OK? That a proposed law....any law.....is unconstitutional and an abridgement of our freedoms? When have they thrown up their hands at some issue and said, simply, "this is not the government's job"? For these people, enough is NEVER enough. Their proposals and rhetoric betray their real agenda----that no tax is too high, no program too big, no law too restricting. We are to live by and for the state first----and ourselves, our families, our liberties---second.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 06:11 PM   #40
danch
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Default Re: Democrats and Socialists......

On the other hand, maybe it'll stop when we stop being stupid enough to elect the people that write these laws restricting our freedom.

We're running into a little problem in this country where we're way too willing to give up freedom for security.
danch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

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