Our Rights?

1534 Views 30 Replies 7 Participants Last post by Back _Marker, Jan 28, 2006

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · Jan 27, 2006

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?

Save

1 - 13 of 31 Posts

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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:

See less See more

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jan 27, 2006

VolEngineer said:
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?

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jan 27, 2006

bumblebee said:
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...

bumblebee said:
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.

bumblebee said:
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?

bumblebee said:
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

bumblebee said:
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)

bumblebee said:
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...

See less See more

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #10 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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:

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #11 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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:

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #14 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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)

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #15 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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)

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #17 · Jan 27, 2006

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

EXACTLY:cheers:

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

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #21 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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.

correct but you can check to see if he has the viable insurance... I've gotten pulled over several times in my old truck (lifted with 38's) for the sole reson so they could check my insurance... the guy had no reason for stopping me... just wanted to verify that I had insurance... but I'll admit I thought it was BS...

on the otherhand the law could require that you submit proof of the extra insurance to the state and the state keep a database of all license plates that way they can just run the plate and let you go...

or maybe instead of extra insurance... a TAX... to help improve motorcycle awarness... training... ect... :scratch:

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #22 · Jan 27, 2006

jtemple said:
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.

one could argue it's survival of the fittest though also... again... natural slection... it comes down to what you believe in...

ok... let me give you another example... the law against suicide...?

isn't that natural slection? nature telling you to quit?

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #24 · Jan 27, 2006

Back _Marker said:
well said... you roq!

now don't forget about the evil insurance companies paying off the senators to get safety laws passed (not for good of the public, but to reduce claims and maintain profitability). Yeah, liability insurance used to be a personal choice, but now that it's mandatory, you won't find any reasonable rates since before it was law. it was still cheaper to add uninsured motorist before the law past.

off topic: I once worked IT at an insurance agency. executive email exchanges discussed the possibility of increasing rates by looking at credit scores. I think it's now being implimented.

-a|ex

Yeah unfortunatly it doesn't help there is that element in our government...

as for the credit scores... I dont' think so in my case... my credit isn't the best... (not even close) yet I pay $384 a year for full coverage on my bike... and $780 a year for full coverage on my truck I'm 25 and it's based in Oregon...

Save

ebbs15

Discussion Starter · #26 · Jan 27, 2006

naw... State farm... but they only insure bikes if you have a auto policy already

Save

1 - 13 of 31 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month