Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/index.php)
-   MO Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1349)

johnnyb 08-19-2002 07:36 PM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
 
Mikey, I have no need for Complete Thoughts for Dummies, as long as I have complete access to guys like you. It's amazing there aren't more of you tonight. It gives one hope, doesn't it? jb

Rex_1 08-19-2002 10:33 PM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
 
I've been riding for over twenty years, and would like to bring up a point that isn't routinely mentioned in the ongoing saga of helmet versus helmetless riders. The EMS professionals that respond to motorcycle accidents. Some areas LA, Chicago, NY, DC etc can be life threatening for the EMS crew just to get to the accident scene. For some reason emergency response vehicles make fun targets for some individuals. Once on scene it's immediatley apparent (other than the obvious) that this rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Often times there is no normal place to establish an airway. It's difficult when their face is crushed or the jaw has disintegrated. Cerebral spinal fluid and blood coming out of the ears nose or fractures of the skull isn't generally a good sign for survival either. Those are extremes. Normally their unconscious and not responsive to stimuli. Either way it's hard work to keep them registering on the monitor until you get them to the trauma unit. Once there it's not entirely uncommon to be met by a concerned member of the bar who has somehow already gotten in touch with the next of kin, and is now representing them in a possible malpractice suit. One more point, and then I'll put my soap box away. That cute little girl along for the ride. You know the one, normally dressed in shorts and a tank top. You can normally find her several yards away by following the skin and blood trail. Wear your helmet! Make your passenger wear a helmet! Both of you wear appropriate protective riding gear!

Steven_Verschoor 08-19-2002 10:43 PM

Re: Helmet Laws
 
How interesting that you should quote James Madison. He was sort of the losing party in Marbury v. Madison, the most important constitutional interpretation case of them all.



The truth of the matter is the Constitution is a brief and generally written document. It has been and continues to be open to wildly varying interpretation.



So what if James Madison saw it one way. His own brother, John, saw it differently. And you and I might see it differently, still.

Steven_Verschoor 08-19-2002 11:19 PM

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


Do you really place that much faith in the document, itself? It is hardly a self-explanatory text. And guess what, that's all it is: a text, a paper document. It must be interpreted.</p>



It may well have all the ingredients to make things fair and just, but it also has all the ingredients for the mess we have now.</p>

DragonF6 08-20-2002 01:59 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
 
Now...that is "reality"...something many riders refuse to think about when considering the helmet issue. I rarely see an "older" biker with inappropriate clothing. "With age comes wisdom"...and the acceptance that we are not invulnerable, like we thought when we were young.

Camillieri 08-20-2002 02:19 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
 
The problem is not that helmetless riders end up on Social Security disability pensions more often. The problem is that Social Security exists. People should be free to do as they please, and then they should be equally free to live with the consequences. The government should never take my money and give it to other people for any reason. Communism was tried several times, and it failed.

Auphliam 08-20-2002 02:35 AM

Re: Bunch of Liberal double talk
 
"It has been and continues to be open to wildly varying interpretation. "



BULL*****



It is not "open to wildly varying interpretation", as you so conveniently put it. It is written clearly and means exactly what it says. It is only when some group of Social Engineers want to restrict somebody elses freedoms, as outlined in it, that it suddenly becomes hard to understand.


mconlon 08-20-2002 02:53 AM

Re: ''Helmet or Thick Skull'' Reader Feedback
 
I wish John Burns would just stop *****-footing around issues like this and tell us how he really feels.


mconlon 08-20-2002 03:06 AM

Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction
 
Ah, but many of the laws passed by the feds do not, in fact, infringe on state rights. The federal gov't does, however, have the biggest stick around: money. Most of the suggested law changes the Feds make are implemented at the state level. Take, for example, seatbelt laws and the helmet laws that were nearly universally piggybacked on to state-implemented seatbelt laws. The Feds didn't (and technically couldn't) mandate that the states do this, that would be unconstitutional. What they did was far worse: blackmail and extortion. "If you don't implement these laws, we are going to withhold all Federal transportation and highway funds." The fault here is thus twofold: what ammounts to legal blackmail on the part of the feds and an unwillingness for the states to take their mouths away from the federal money teat. Until the states are willing to take their sticky fingers out of the federal pork pie, the feds will continue to extort changes to the laws at the state level.


mconlon 08-20-2002 03:13 AM

Re: Democrats and Socialists......
 
Ooooo, good point! Better yet, why don't we round up all these helmetless riders and send them to the same "reeducation camp" as the cell-phone using SUV drivers? You know, one of those camps with the nice showers...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 AM.