Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Paranoid News Clips (
-   -   AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report (

banda 01-16-2002 08:53 AM

Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report
I think he meant "'Do Rags", the nifty little pre-tied handkerchief things that yuppie hog riders wear on their heads in states without helmet laws.

They can be found next to the HD nighties and HD Barbie dolls in your local (choke, cough) HD motorcycle dealership.

Funny, the motorcycle dealership that I buy my bikes from doesn't sell Barbies... or 'Do Rags, just motorcycles.

J_W_Nelson 01-16-2002 09:34 AM

Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report
It seems to me that this is easy to fix. The insurance companies get actuarial tables (the kind they all use to set rates for everything – “Oh you smoke, well your term life will cost $xxx”) and charge riders appropriately depending on whether they sign on to wear a helmet or not. If you are an official helmet wearer and end up in a ditch with your helmet at home in the cellar, then your hospitalization coverage is reduced – you have to sell the bike to pay for the CAT scan, ER, two month hospital stay and occupational therapy. The free market will tend to keep the insurance companies honest – more or less.

john 01-16-2002 10:39 AM

Re: Constitutionally.....
Eric......the neccessary and proper clause only allows the federal government the use of powers in order to support their existing powers. An example would be the creation of the Air Force. The constitution specifies the creation of an Army and Navy, but at the time it was written planes had not yet existed. Once they were, Congress had to exercise the "neccessary and proper" clause to create teh Air Force because, although the Constitution did not specify the creation of one, Congress believed that it was in line with that document. Very seldom do the implied powers have an effect on everyday life.

That said....i think people forget the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They twist its words to suit their cause.....and try to ignore the intentions of its writers. The 2nd amendment is an example "The right to bear arms." Endless debate over what that means ensues every time gun legislature is brought up.

As far as helmets go, I think it should be all or nothing. If you choose to wear helmet, then you should be entitled to all the medical help in the world. If you choose not to, i think insurance companies should choose to have helmet clauses, saying that there is a policy requiring you to wear a helmet, and if you are not wearing it then they should not be responsible for medical costs.

If you are going to depend on third party financial help in case of an accident, then i think you should be required to help yourself.

Helmet laws? No, but i think insurance companies should offer helmet and non helmet plans, giving people willing to help themselves and stack the relative odds in their favor a break.

john 01-16-2002 10:43 AM

Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report
gert with the times.....Wayne who? Its Rossi now.

I think i will stick with my Giacomo Agostini tapes.

grover750 01-16-2002 07:57 PM

Re: The slippery slope..
Well said, and I agree with most of what you said. I guess where we disagree is that what you see as an example of a slippery slope, I see as progress.

I see smoking bans as progress. You say we need unbiased research before making laws, I agree. More and more (I'd say unbiased, but it's always hard to say for sure) research says second hand smoke leads to health problems, public attitude towards smoking changes, and so the laws are tightening. Do you think that people will not be able to smoke alone in their homes? Or cars? I'd be against those bans. It's common sense. One of the reasons people's attitudes towards smoking changed was the research showing the negative health effects.

I guess I see the slippery slope as often stopping some good changes from being made (not necessarily helmet laws), without many examples of places when it actually happened to the point of ridiculousness.

I don't want to turn this into a gun control argument, but you say above that gun control is affected by the slippery slope. I really disagree here. I think the NRA has used the slippery slope argument to perfection to keep even the most minor changes (in my opinion, good changes) from being made.

As far as helmet laws being affected by the slippery slope, aren't more and more states repealing helmet laws, not enacting them? Would this be a slippery upslope? Will helmets soon be outlawed?

Eric 01-17-2002 04:59 AM

Re: Constitutionally.....
My point on the necessary and proper clause was that it has been interpreted to allow Congress to do a number of things not specifically listed in the Constitution in the name of carrying out the explicit powers -- example nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can create a national bank, yet we have a federal banking system.

The primary point of my post, however, was that people like to think of the government as this thing that does things to us when, theoretically, we have the power to control what the government does. Yet we still see extremely low voter turnouts and participation. How many of the people complaining actually voted in the last election?

I completely agree on the Bill of Rights. People can twist to support almost any view.

das 01-17-2002 06:24 AM

Re: The slippery slope..
Well, I suspect that the distinguishing feature between slow progress and the slippery slope probably depends mostly on your opinion of a particular issue. If things are going your way, it's progress, if they're not, it's the slippery slope.

As for gun control, it's certainly seen a slow progression of increasingly tighter controls. I haven't followed the debate lately, but since I started shooting & hunting as a kid in the mid 70's , it's become significantly more difficult to do anything related to guns... buy guns, buy ammo, find shooting ranges, get carry permits, etc.

Some of it is almost universally seen as progress, such as educational requirements and physical safety improvements (availability of trigger locks & safes, etc). But much of it is of debatable value... such as the need to register, or restrictions on types of firearms, or restrictions on carry permits, etc. Me? I don't mind waiting for background checks, and I can tolerate the fees and paperwork; I'm a bit nervous about somebody making a list of guns and gun owners, though. I feel the same way about registering my cars and motorcycles, too. I just don't think the gov't has a legitimate "need to know".

I have no need for a .50 caliber machine gun. It's way more power than is required to enjoy the hobby/sport/activity of shooting. But, then again, a Hayabusa or V-Rod is way more power than is required to enjoy the hobby/sport/activity of motorcycling.. (Sorry for the MC content :) , I'll try to keep it to a minimum. ) Doesn't mean I think we should ban them.

Anyhow, it's all just my opinion.

Happy riding.

Poser 01-17-2002 11:29 AM

Long Winded? You were just started!
You were starting one of my favorite RANTS! I don't think you should be allowed to drive a car until you can safely ride a bike. Even if you "graduate" to a car and never ride again, you will be more aware of bikes, and incindentally, everything else on the road.

Not to mention that you can fit four bikes in a parking place if you put a little effort into it, a similar number of extra bikes can fit down the road, etc.

Another benefit of REQUIRING riding is that people who only wanted to use a vehicle as an appliance would end up on mass transit. The additional demand would cause improvements to the mass transit systems in place or construction of new ones. Those of us who actually LIKE to use roads would be able to do so. I ride every day, rain or shine, cold or hot. Snow is about the only thing that keeps me off the bike, so bikes can work for a living instead of just waiting for a sunny day.

Poser 01-17-2002 11:36 AM

You are an optimist
I don't have a lot of faith that the insurance companies are subject to the kind of free market pressures that would keep them honest. Insurance is a bizzare industry at best. I doubt that motorcyclists are enough of a market for the insurance companies to spend much time or effort designing insurance packages for different kinds of riders. Also, I doubt that the research exists or will exist to allow those specific packages. The market, and therefore the money, is just not big enough.

If there were more of us it would help. The solution is to recruit more riders.

tbuse 01-17-2002 12:06 PM

Re: Constitutionally.....
The vast majority of federal intervention in your daily life is based on the commerce clause of the Constitution. Almost all of your civil rights legislation was enforced at the state level by reliance on the commerce clause to give the feds power to enforce those laws.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 PM.