[ebbs15]

I hope this thread can stay civil... I'm not attacking... just questioning... if you can't state an argument with out name calling or personal attacks... PLEASE DON'T COMMENT

that being said...

after reading alot of the arguments against the helmet law... I keep hearing the same thing... people support wearing a helmet, think you should, they even do... yet fight like crazy because they feel that it's our freedom to choose...

I don't really undersand... do you think there should be seatbelt laws? how about laws like drinking and driving? Murder? stealing? I know these are on the drastic side... but with your argument shouldn't I have the right to choose to/not to do anyone of those? Now common sense tells me that stealing is wrong... same with murder... AND drinking and driving... yet so many still seem to do it... so we have laws... same as the seat belt...

to me... and it sounds like to most of you... wearing a helmet is common sense... so why not support a law that inforces just that... COMMON SENSE?

Anyone?

 

[jtemple]

A similar question came up regarding graduated licensing. I believe they have a system in Australia where you have to start on a 200cc or smaller bike to begin with, then you're allowed to ride bigger bikes as you gain experience. Here was my reply, when someone said graduated licensing would be a good idea in the U.S.

"Graduated licensing is horrible. I should have the freedom to choose what I want to ride, always. It's not the government's job to decide what I can and can't handle, nor is it the government's job to babysit me at every turn.

Don't tell me I have to wear a helmet. I'll wear one anyway, because I value my life.

Don't tell me what kind of bike I can ride. I'll stay within my limitations, because I value my life.

Don't tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. I'll wear one anyway, because I value my life.

Just like I don't want the government telling me what kind of guns I can own, among other things.

The government shouldn't be our babysitter.

If anything, there should be helmet/seatbelt and other laws to protect children. Adults are on their own. If you're not smart enough to protect yourself, I don't need you breathing my air. But, your children aren't old enough to make those decisions for themselves, and if their mom/dad is next in line for the Darwin Award, the kids should not be forced to come along for the ride."

 

[Trip]

I don't believe we have any freedoms when it comes to driving on public roads and a lot of our problems result from a poor driver's education system. It is an extreme privilege that the government lets us have licenses and allows us to use this form of transportation with so little training and knowledge on the subject. Think about how much time you spend at school learning all these subjects to get to where you are at today with your career, but then look at how easy it is to get a driver's license. Something just doesn't make sense that we allow something as dangerous as vehicles to be obtained with so little training. Look at Germany for example. Some stretches of the autobahn have no posted speed limit, yet it is much safer than any of America's interstates that do have posted speed limits. They have a much tougher driver's program required to obtain a license in that country. With proper education (and their road maintenance as well, which our roads lack) you can have extreme speeds be much safer.

However, the MSF course being mandatory for bikers is a great start to a much better program that should be implemented for cage drivers as well.

Also, being safe is not just something you should just do at work because they make you, it is something you should do all the time. Good habits might just make the difference in living to see grandchildren or dying before you get to experience the joys/pains of parenthood. Common sense is not something all of us are graced with, so laws are made to protect everyone.

 

[ebbs15]

A similar question came up regarding graduated licensing. I believe they have a system in Australia where you have to start on a 200cc or smaller bike to begin with, then you're allowed to ride bigger bikes as you gain experience. Here was my reply, when someone said graduated licensing would be a good idea in the U.S.

"Graduated licensing is horrible. I should have the freedom to choose what I want to ride, always. It's not the government's job to decide what I can and can't handle, nor is it the government's job to babysit me at every turn.

Don't tell me I have to wear a helmet. I'll wear one anyway, because I value my life.

Don't tell me what kind of bike I can ride. I'll stay within my limitations, because I value my life.

Don't tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. I'll wear one anyway, because I value my life.

Just like I don't want the government telling me what kind of guns I can own, among other things.

The government shouldn't be our babysitter.

If anything, there should be helmet/seatbelt and other laws to protect children. Adults are on their own. If you're not smart enough to protect yourself, I don't need you breathing my air. But, your children aren't old enough to make those decisions for themselves, and if their mom/dad is next in line for the Darwin Award, the kids should not be forced to come along for the ride."

:jacked: it's funny you bring that up because that's EXACTLY what i'm going through right now... PACAF (Pacific Air Command Air Force) has instuted a policy that a new rider can ride no bigger than a 600cc 4 stroke or a 200cc 2 stroke... for the first year... then after the first year... they can take the experienced riders course and can own anything afterwords...

I personally think it's fine... except for one thing... VTWINS!... I had planned on purchasing the SV650s but according to base regs... I can't ride it for a year after I got my license... but I can go out and get a 05 ZZR600... that makes more horse power, more torque, is faster 0-60, in the quarter, and has a higher top speed... but in the AF's eyes it's safer... :wbs:

anyways... back to my orignal topic

you say the government shouldn't be our babysitter but that's exactly what the government DOES... it creates laws/guidelines for the country... same as your babysitter did...

but like I said... do you really feel like by them inforcing a law that mandates you to do something you already do is stepping on your rights? where do you draw the line? as I stated with Drunk Driving and Murder? comonsence to me... but so many idiots still do it... do you think they should be left to make the choice on their own? :help:

 

[ebbs15]

Common sense is not something all of us are graced with, so laws are made to protect everyone.

Very true... and my point... why shouldn't there be a law that inforces it?

 

[bumblebee]

First...better check your history...license and registrations, along with driver licenses came along years after the automobile was in use. It started as a way to prove ownership of vehicles. People didn't need a license to travel on Public roads on their horses and we have the constitutional right to move about. Driving is not some tremendous priviledge bestowed upon us by a munificent government. The People gave the authority to regulate motor vehicles to the state, and can take it back.

On the helmet issue, if you think it is a good law to mandate helmets for all riders, then don't ever get on your motorcycle without full body armor and leathers, else you will be a hypocrite.

Seatbelts and helmets are apples and oranges...Seatbelts are used to keep you from being injured while bouncing around inside a vehicle or from being ejected from the vehicle in the event of a crash. Air bags are now mandated in all new cars...do you want an airbag on your sportbike? Let's see how many lives are saved with the airbags on the Gold Wings and maybe we should push for them on all bikes.

Considering 75 % of all injuries sustained in a motorcycle crash are from the stomach and below, perhaps a push should be made to require body armor.

There are few motorcycle fatalities/injuries, percentage wise, where a helmet would have made a difference, but body armor would have prevented injuries. How many people do you know that have gotten road rash?..................... only on their head?

your logic is flawed and is more of the BS from the people who want a "Nanny State" where the Government has to tell you what socks to put on in the morning, and people no longer have to be responsible for their own actions.

You wear your helmet and your gear because they can save your life in the event of a crash. If you don't, you suffer. It is a personal choice, and the person making the choice must be accountable for their own actions...not beat over the head with some government stick.

Show me where I'm wrong...

 

[ebbs15]

On the helmet issue, if you think it is a good law to mandate helmets for all riders, then don't ever get on your motorcycle without full body armor and leathers, else you will be a hypocrite.

In your example I'd be a hypocrite only if I went out with no helmet and no gear... I'm not saying buy the greatest helmet... just that you should have SOMETHING... but yes... I can honestly say that I haven't (short time riding) and hopefully will never ride with out some sort of gear that includes a helmet, jacket (ment for riding), pants (re-enforced jeans at the least), boots and golves...

Seatbelts and helmets are apples and oranges...Seatbelts are used to keep you from being injured while bouncing around inside a vehicle or from being ejected from the vehicle in the event of a crash. Air bags are now mandated in all new cars...do you want an airbag on your sportbike? Let's see how many lives are saved with the airbags on the Gold Wings and maybe we should push for them on all bikes.

I don't think they're as diffrent as you make them out to be... they're both safty items... and both have been proven to help save your life in an accident... as for the Air bags... it assists the seat belt in slowing your forward/sideways motion... it's not a stand alone system... which is why they tell you to wear your seatbelt even(esspecially) when you have an active airbag... as for the goldwing? I've seen the video... but I'm not convinced it'll help.

Considering 75 % of all injuries sustained in a motorcycle crash are from the stomach and below, perhaps a push should be made to require body armor.

correct 75% of those are below the waist... but of how many FATALITYS are the injuries sustained below the waist? howmany involve head injurys?

There are few motorcycle fatalities/injuries, percentage wise, where a helmet would have made a difference, but body armor would have prevented injuries. How many people do you know that have gotten road rash?..................... only on their head?

Don't tell me you wear your helmet for road rash! come on... you could wear a leather bondage mask and not get road rash... it's for IMPACT!... the brain is the most delicate organ in the body... it doesn't/can't recover from severe impacts like the rest of the body

your logic is flawed and is more of the BS from the people who want a "Nanny State" where the Government has to tell you what socks to put on in the morning, and people no longer have to be responsible for their own actions.

it's common sence though... I'm not looking for someone to tell me how to live life... I love my freedom of choice... BUT... when it's something that I/you already CHOOSE to do I don't understand why you wouldn't support it. (if you look back up my question is for those who DO wear helmets but don't support a law to enforce them)

You wear your helmet and your gear because they can save your life in the event of a crash. If you don't, you suffer. It is a personal choice, and the person making the choice must be accountable for their own actions...not beat over the head with some government stick.

Show me where I'm wrong...

the problem is that that choice effects us all... it drives up insurance rates (though I'm not sure they'll come down now anyways) it adds to the attitude of many that we're rebels... wreckless... and utterly crazy...

 

[jtemple]

...do you think they should be left to make the choice on their own?

Yes, it's called Natural Selection. If you aren't smart enough to take care of yourself, I don't need you around.

 

[jtemple]

it's common sence though... I'm not looking for someone to tell me how to live life... I love my freedom of choice... BUT... when it's something that I/you already CHOOSE to do I don't understand why you wouldn't support it. (if you look back up my question is for those who DO wear helmets but don't support a law to enforce them)

You wear a helmet because you choose to. Why not let someone else choose not to? Just because you do it anyway doesn't mean it's a good place for a law. That's like me saying I don't own a liter bike anyway, so let's make them illegal on the streets.

 

[ebbs15]

Yes, it's called Natural Selection. If you aren't smart enough to take care of yourself, I don't need you around.

but now define natural... some people feel that if it's your time it's your time... so say someone does a driveby... should we chaulk it up to it was their time?

but I do see your point... I'd like to leave the warning stickers off **** like the hair dryer that says ... " DO NOT USE IN SHOWER":crazy: :scratch:

 

[ebbs15]

You wear a helmet because you choose to. Why not let someone else choose not to? Just because you do it anyway doesn't mean it's a good place for a law. That's like me saying I don't own a liter bike anyway, so let's make them illegal on the streets.

good point but leter bikes don't save lives... helmets do.

how about this instead... how about we don't require helmets... but require those who don't wear helmets to carry extra insurance... :2cents:

 

[jtemple]

but now define natural... some people feel that if it's your time it's your time... so say someone does a driveby... should we chaulk it up to it was their time?

That's not natural selection, that's homicide. There's a law against that, and while I think the law is a good idea, I don't think it prevents crimes. It only allows us to punish those who commit murder.

Dying because you wrecked your bike and smashed your unhelmeted head is your own dumb fault, and is natural selection.

 

[jtemple]

how about this instead... how about we don't require helmets... but require those who don't wear helmets to carry extra insurance... :2cents:

While that looks good on paper, it would be impossible to enforce. Who would actually tell their insurer that they won't wear a helmet? How would you enforce that requirement? Pull everyone over that isn't wearing a helmet? It's just not feasible.

 

[ebbs15]

That's not natural selection, that's homicide. There's a law against that, and while I think the law is a good idea, I don't think it prevents crimes. It only allows us to punish those who commit murder.

Dying because you wrecked your bike and smashed your unhelmeted head is your own dumb fault, and is natural selection.

correct it is a homiced but my point was that some people feel that it's a form of natural slection...

a helmet law wouldn't prevent people from choosing not to wear a helmet... it would just alow ust to punish those who are dumb enough to not wear one

(I hope you dont' read that as me being a smart ass... I just wanted to use your example)

 

[ebbs15]

While that looks good on paper, it would be impossible to enforce. Who would actually tell their insurer that they won't wear a helmet? How would you enforce that requirement? Pull everyone over that isn't wearing a helmet? It's just not feasible.

same as they inforce the seatbelt law...

if they get a ticket for riding without a helmet... they must carry extra insurance for the next year...

why do you think it's not feasible to pull everyone over who's not wearing one? it's alot easier than seeing if they have a seatbelt on... yet I've seen people get pulled over for just that... (they do it on base all the time)

 

[jtemple]

I'm not getting worked up here. It's just friendly conversation. :dthumb:

 

[ebbs15]

I'm not getting worked up here. It's just friendly conversation. :dthumb:

EXACTLY:cheers:

it's a good waste of time... :lol:

 

[jtemple]

why do you think it's not feasible to pull everyone over who's not wearing one? it's alot easier than seeing if they have a seatbelt on... yet I've seen people get pulled over for just that... (they do it on base all the time)

Sure, it's easy to see. But, everyone is required to wear a seatbelt. If you lift the helmet law for those that pay extra insurance premiums, you can no longer tell if the rider is breaking a law simply because they have no helmet on.

Pulling people over because they *might* be doing something illegal is one step closer to a police state. It's unconstitutional.

 

[fastbaill2004]

why do you think it's not feasible to pull everyone over who's not wearing one? it's alot easier than seeing if they have a seatbelt on... yet I've seen people get pulled over for just that... (they do it on base all the time)


Yes, we write seat belt tickets on base very couple hours, it is a easy law to enforce.

 

[jtemple]

correct it is a homiced but my point was that some people feel that it's a form of natural slection...

It's not natural selection, here's why. By comitting homicide, you are infringing on the rights of another person (their right to life). Therefore, committing a crime.

Riding without a helmet and getting your melon smashed doesn't infringe on another person's rights.