Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Paranoid News Clips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2002, 05:01 AM   #11
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I disagree, for two reasons:

1) The government doesn't have the right to mandate helmet use, or seatbelt use, or what I eat, or how much I exercise, or whether I smoke or any other personal health choices.



2) The number of motorcyclists in the USA is relatively small, compared to the whole population. Even if a large percentage of them sustained head injuries of the type you describe, it would still pale (financially) in comparison to many other "burdens" on society. The numbers just aren't big enough to justify this kind of argument... same problem with the restrictions on motorcycle emissions.



Everyone is responsible for taking and mitigating their own risks. For some people, only cars that have been rated the highest in government crash tests are acceptable. For others, any car is ok, but a motorcycle is too much risk. For others, a motorcycle is ok, but only with a helmet. For others, a motorcycle without a helmet is ok, etc, etc, etc.



What the government *should* be doing is performing objective (i.e. unbiased) research and subsequently promoting education, so that people can try to understand what the real risks are and make their own decisions. The government should *NOT* be mandating what risks are and are not acceptable.
das is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-14-2002, 05:27 AM   #12
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

Insurance companies are some of the most profitable organizations in our country, and continually attempt to negate risk to their bottom line. I many ways, they are worse than organized crime syndicates.



Hear hear. The IIHS has a long and sordid history of spreading misinformation to justify the charging astronomical insurance rates for certain bikes. They are merely a profit-motivated lobby organization, much like the Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wliderness Alliance and other equally degraded groups of out and out liars. Their existence is justified only by convincing insurance companies that the IIHS is saving them money. Any of their supposed studies should be dismissed out of hand. I've yet to see one that wasn't later to be shown to be fraudulent in one form or another.

__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 07:03 AM   #13
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

Probably the best way to deal with these kicked-in-the-head HD haters is to completely ignore them. Responding to them just incites the little darlings.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 11:59 AM   #14
grover750
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 142
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I think you need to go back and carefully read McCueRC's post above.



1) You wearing a helmet would be your decision and your decision only if we lived in a country with absolutely no compassion, one that left motorcyclists bleeding on the side of the road instead of sending out an ambulance to save you, then supporting your healthcare after your insurance runs out, paying for in-home nursing care so you have someone to wipe your a** the rest of your life, etc.. We live in a civilized nation. We take care of our infants, elderly, and whoever else can't take care of themselves, no matter what the cause. Since the government pays for the bill, they have the right to, if our elected officials say so, enact laws that reduce the risk of injury, such as seat belts and air bags.



2) This is the worst argument. If this argument was valid, I'd litter all I wanted to. The small amount of garbage I throw into the ditch pales in comparison to the amount thrown in the ditches the country over. Would you pick up a quarter if you saw it on the sidewalk? I would, even though a quarter would hardly effect my financial situation. So why pick it up? Reward vs. Effort. The burden of wearing helmets is very small compared to the rewards, no matter how few people die in motorcycles compared to how many people die each year from other causes.



I do agree with your last paragraph. Too many laws have been written without the proper research. Certain things need no more research. Cigarettes cause cancer. Seat belts save lives. Aesbestos is bad for your lungs. Helmets are good for your head.
grover750 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 12:04 PM   #15
grover750
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 142
Default re: inform me, please..

Did the study say how many of the people who lived were permanently disabled by their accident? Reminds me of the story of the married motorcycle couple who were going riding with only one helmet:



He: Here, honey, you wear the helmet. I want you to be safe.

She: Hell no, you wear it.

He: Don't you want to be safe?

She: I'm not wipin' your ass the rest of my life, you're wipin' mine!



If you find a link to the study, please post it.



grover750 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 01:04 PM   #16
JohnGeisz
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 100
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I'm seriously thinking about that!



I live in the suburbs and ride in rural areas, and just the other day I was off my bike plugging in my Gerbing's gloves when some extremely ugly mo-fo's pulled up beside me in a beater van and started just cussing me out like they were about to get out and kick my butt. I was just standing there!



I was alone, in the middle of nowhere, with no way to defend myself.



Another time I was on my totally streeted-out XR650L parked by the roadside and some guy came out with a gun in a holster and was asking me if I was planning to do some off-roading on his property. He was accusing but he didn't threaten me, but if he had, I was FUBAR.



I'd like to carry one of my handguns for an ounce of protection, but then I guess I be threatened with jail time from the police since we can't seem to get any kind of concealed carry law passed in Missouri.
JohnGeisz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 04:21 PM   #17
gypsydr
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

While we're at it, lets not forget arguing whether "loud pipes save lives."
gypsydr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2002, 04:03 AM   #18
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: Recent IIHS Report

I guess it didn't come out quite the way I intended. I certainly realize that the gov't frequently imposes all kinds of restrictions on our personal health choices. My point is that we shouldn't let them. They do it, but that does not mean that they have the right to do it.



It's been a while since I've actually read the Constitution word for word, but as I recall, the general jist of it was that the gov't should be taking care of things that the individual states or the individual people could not accomplish effectively... things like foreign relations and currency and the armed forces... not things like what you eat or how to take care of your children.



Of course, most of the helmet laws are at the state level, so the Constitution itself is only so relevant. But then, most of the state gov'ts had analogous charters... take care of things that the fed wasn't, but that were still beyong the means of local gov'ts or individual people. And so on with the local gov'ts.



But at no point was any level of US gov't chartered with telling you how to run your life on a day to day basis.
das is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2002, 04:04 AM   #19
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

The problem with argument number one is that that sort of reasoning opens the door for the government to regulate every single facet of your life from cradle to grave. There is nothing you can do that does not carry some form of risk and therefore the government, by that argument, can put cameras in your house to make sure you are behaving properly at all times. You'll be having a little speaker in the wall of your house telling you when to go to bed, etc. All in the name of "for your own good".





The Nazis gained their power mainly through calls for public safety. Myself, I don't wish to see the totalitarian state that do-gooders are trying to bring us.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2002, 04:46 AM   #20
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure where the disconnect is. I re-read McCueRC's post, and my response, but I'm not sure I entirely understand your response.



1) Compassion or no compassion is not the issue. It makes sense for communities to fund an ambulance service (and a police service, and firefighting service, etc), so we do it. I'm very happy to pay those taxes. But I don't think anybody should wiping my a** for the rest of my life if I'm a vegetable; I don't think that that is compassionate or civilized (and yes, I mean it, even as it applies to me... I have clauses in my will to back up that opinion). But my point was that the gov't does not have the right to tell me to wear a helmet (even though they do it, and things like it, all the time).



2) McCueRC said that helmets should be mandated because the healthcare costs associated with helmet-preventable injuries are a burden on society. My point was that that cost is miniscule compared to the healthcare cost burden of lots of things that the gov't allows you to do (like smoke and eat fatty foods, etc). Therefore his argument is invalid.



I was not trying to say that you or I should not wear a helmet, or that the effect of a helmet-preventable injury is of no consequence.



Indeed, I wear a helmet. Every single time I ride. And a good one, too. A 3yr old Shoei full-face (I'll be replacing it this spring, just for age). Bright red for visibility. And I wear it even when I ride in states that do not have laws requiring me to wear my helmet. And I wear my Hein Gericke leathers (jacket & pants), and my full-fingered Olympia gloves, and my very protective Alpinestars boots... every time I ride... even when it's really hot or otherwise inconvenient.



I'm a riding billboard for proper gear. And if you ask me, I'll be more than happy to tell you that you should choose to do the same, and why. I'll even take the time to help you pick out gear that's right for you, if you need that kind of assistance. And I refuse to let people ride on the back of my bike without proper gear. Etc, etc, etc.



But, if you ask me whether the gov't has the right to tell me that I have to wear this gear... the answer is a resounding NO!
das 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