Motorcycle Forums banner

Helmet Law Repeal Stats

31325 Views 185 Replies 73 Participants Last post by  Hades
just wear a helmet.
1 - 20 of 186 Posts
A few words from some prominent people.....

"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security will will recieve neither, and do not deserve either."

------Benjamin Franklin

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-----Samuel Adams

The architects of this great country are not on your side.
Nope, can't do that....

It would be ridiculous to drive around a huge, armored brinks truck with only one passenger! Think about the horrible mileage, large amounts of pollution, and intimidation of lesser motorists that would occurr!!! For the love of God, man, THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Thanks Dan!

I didn't have the willpower to apply myself and actually go check the statistics, but these kind of stories always leave me feeling that some extremely relevant information was left out. As always, the proponets of further regulation never let the facts get in the way of their agenda. No stone is unturned, no nook..... uncrannied in the mission to manipulate, distort, omit, and outright lie about information pursuant to the issue at hand.

I for one believe that it is grossly irresponsible to ride without a helmet. I am considering telling a few of my buddies, guys who occasionally insist on going for helmetless rides, to not bother picking me up when that is the case. I don't want to be there to see their brains splattered all over the road. I will plead with them as their friend not to do it, however, I will never ask the government to point a gun at them and tell them to put on their helmet.
You heartless conservative!

You're absolutely right. I could have written your post myself, right up to your last comment. Even this heartless conservative wouldn't refuse medical treatment for the uninsured, whether it was their fault or not; I can, however, understand your frustration and willingness to resort to such an arrangement. In my case, I may not support the policy of allowing people to die in the streets, but I want them to THINK that they will. Maybe then they will take responsibility for themselves.
As a former BMXer...

And sometime current trail rider, I will say that dirt riding is one area that the helmet-nazi mentality has not made inroads. The majority of trail riders (if you watch the x-games, you know what type of dirt "trails" I'm talking about) still don't wear helmets. Of course, falling on the dirt, even from high in the air, is much safer than crashing your motorcycle on the street, so the two can't be compared. Only idiot plush-bottom Audi-driving late-twenties morons with a $2000 dollar mountain bike and not enough skill to ride it out of their driveway wear helmets (I guess that's probably a good reason, though.)
Right to medical care?

Your reference to a percieved "right" to medical care is part of the problem. I don't remember reading that admenment to the constitution, do you? If health care wasn't considered a de facto "right" of the people, which it is clearly not, then maybe more people would take responsibility for themselves.
I beg to differ...

I am not allowed to arm myself against the potentially dangerous animals that I may encounter on a downtown sidewalk. The government seems to want to render me defenseless in that regard. Why would they have such callous disregard for my safety in this area?
Not everyone.

There ARE those people that understand that not one thing you mentioned is an area that the government is licensed, under the constitution, to regulate. Not everyone wants these things from government. Some want to provide these things for themselves, and enjoy the freedom afforded from having the government leave them alone. As Tom has said, in America, there is virtue in erring on the side of personal freedom.
Ummmm.... Yeah......

I'mmm going to have to go ahead and sort of..... disagree with you there? He's been real flakey lately, and I don't think he's the kind of person we want for upper management.....

Seriously, requiring people to disclose all their personal information before being allowed to ride would amount to prior restraint, not to mention the fact that government has no right to know. I don't want the government knowing any more than they have to about me, even if they know pretty much everything already anyway.

This is a touchy situation for conservatives. Liberals have no problem here. More laws, more regulations, less freedom, easy solution. Government has no place providing health care for anyone. But denying care to a dying person amounts to murder (although, given some of their other positions, i.e. abortion, even this wouldn't be much of a stretch for a liberal). I have two general feelings on the solution to the problem:

#1. The financial responsibility for providing the poor with health care should fall on those that would freely donate their resources to help. I think privately owned foundations could have a role in the collection and disbursement of funds to hospitals for the settlement of debts owed by the poor. Notice I didn't say "uninsured". I think it should simply be assumed that if and when the patient makes a full recovery, and is able to continue working, he/she will be expected to work off the debt that they owe. This is the price to pay for involving one's self in dangerous activites, such as riding the New York subway, without the benefit of insurance. Even if you make $75,000 a year, if you also owe a $400,000 hospital bill, you're poor. At least for a good long while.

#2: Doctors have chosen as their profession a line of work that is difficult, expensive to learn, and highly financially rewarding. It is also a basic need of humans that wish to prolong their lives and reduce suffering. This second consideration means that normal economic rules may not apply. Just as the Hippocratic Oath commands the doctor to "consider the benefit of my patients", the doctor must know that he has put himself in a position to help people that he knows cannot repay him. Every attempt can and must be made by the patient to settle the debt, but in some cases, the doctor (and hospital) must be prepared to incur the cost. It's either that, or let someone suffer or die.

On the flip side, if it can be proved that government had a hand in creating the unsafe environment, it should be possible to gain a monetary settlement from government. If I'm shot by some thug in the food court in the Megamall here in the suburbs of Minneapolis, I should be able to sue the city of Bloomington or Hennepin County for refusing to allow me to protect myself (carry a firearm).
See less See more
No, it shouldn't.

The constitution was not written to aquiesce to the changing whims of society.

"The Constitution is a written insturment. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."

--United States Supreme Court, South Carolina vs. United States, 1905
No problem...

The premium on helmetless riding is not a solution to the problem of public expense, but a viable option for insurance companies frought with inflated health claims due to helmetless motorcyclists. With respect to your comment about abiding by the terms of your policy.... This already happens all the time, the insurance companies know about it. I have even been offered lower premiums by an agent for stipulating that I would not ride to work, all the while the agent telling me that it didn't matter. I could ride wherever, whenever I wanted to, including to work.
To an extent, you're right.

Of course, in areas with helmet laws, officers will not summarily execute you for failing to comply. But behind every law is that possibility, if taken to its logical end. If you don't wear a helmet, you'll be ticketed. If you don't pay the ticket, or the fine when you're convicted, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. When they arrest you, they will throw you in jail. If you manage to escape, or cause much turmoil in the local jail because you feel that you are wrongly imprisoned, you will be charged with other crimes and sent to a federal penitentary. If you try to escape from there, you will be shot.

That is the ultimate force government has behind every law in this country. Whenever you comtemplate a law, consider this: Would you point a gun at somebody and make them comply? In essence, that's what a law is doing.
Re: Nope, can

(lol) Sure! Whatever floats your boat, just don't do it on the EPA discussion!! :)
That is a problem.

Yes, the Constitution has been amended on a number of occasions. The founding fathers recognized that a changing society may render a particular rule moot or counterproductive. That is the reason they made provisions for it to be amended. I have much more respect for those that would change the rules of this country by changing the rulebook, even if their goals are diametrically opposed to mine. At least they recognize the proper method.

Interpreting the Constitution to mean that which is doesn't, however, is judicial usurpation. That is wrong, and as Thomas Jefferson said, is "the customary method by which free governments are destroyed."
Back by popular demand....

"I respectfully dissent."

While the opinions of the Supreme Court certainly carry 'gravitas' by the barrelful, that doesn't mean that they were either germane or correct. They have handed down many a decision with no Constitutional basis, such as Roe vs. Wade, as well as the Dredd Scot decision. In this case, I don't have much of a problem with anything that the court has said with respect to the question of helmet legislation. There simply hasn't been much.

The only rational argument that can be made for compelling someone to take responsibility for one's self, in this case, lies squarely on the extra burden, or percieved extra burden, one may have on society at large when the hospital bill shows up. The Supreme Court has, as of yet, left this concern in the proper domain of the several states, as required by the tenth amendment. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has incurred responsibility in some cases because of the socialism prevailent in ideas such as Medicaid and Medicare. The same goes for the state governments, although under the federal Constitution, they at least have license to do so. By taking on the duty of providing health care to those that can't, or won't, provide it for themselves, they have forced the rest of us to become responsible for the care of these people. It has also become ingrained in the minds of those on the recieving end, as well as many elitists, that this is a fundemental "right."

There is NO constitutional mandate for the socialist provision of health care for anyone. Though I'm not going to stand here and demand the revocation of all forms of government assistance in the area of health care (such as that for extreme mental illness or other precondition of serious disablement), it is fundamentally unfair to force upon society the duty of caring for the bad choices of others. Citizens at large have a moral duty to care for the sick and weak, to be sure, but using the force of government to compel them to do so is what got us into this conundrum; it is also explicitly unconstitutional with respect to the federal government. Proceeding with such an agenda removes all virtue from the act of contributing to the health of others.

The question of riding without a helmet should be academic. If I'm not hurting you, leave me alone. The socialist policies of government assistance, unfortunately, have consequences that extend far beyond the realm of their intended effect, as they always do.
See less See more

Many of the opinions handed down in the 60's and 70's had little to do with reasoning. They were simply the product of an activist court reading into the Constutition all manner of "right" that don't exist, implied or otherwise.

Why have the 1st, ninth, and fourteenth amendments become the rallying cries of liberals, yet the second, fifth and tenth have been all but declared "dead letters"? If the Court would interpret the second amendment with the expansionist zeal with which they read the first, we would all be allowed to drive tanks and surround our homes with mortars. Likewise, the thirteenth amendment could encompass "slavery to the state", as well as abject chattel slavery (of course, the court has no use for these determinations, as they are not beneficial to government.)

Are you saying, Gabe, that opinions rendered prior to the activist rulings that you cite should be considered moot? Should the Court refrain from relying on past opinions? Should we throw out the general rule of precedent so justices can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever suits their purposes?

One last thing. Why did it take two hundred years for the court to "find" these edicts in the Constitution?
See less See more
Here we go....

20 million children in this country live in poverty? Ok, they can't afford their Tommy boy jeans and have 4 TV's in the house, but that does not constitute poverty. The bibilical command is to clothe the naked, not style them. A child in "poverty" in America is considered spoiled and priviledged in Guatemala. If there are 20 million children in "poverty" in America, I'll eat a blue-nosed monkey and Jim Morrison was a genius.

You obviously have something against the wealthy, given the prejudice you show towards them. The "poor" beat their wives as much or more than the wealthy. You don't see officers on "COPS" going to gated communities. They go to the trailer parks.

If you read my post clearly, you will see that I don't morally absolve people from helping anyone, even their predicament is their own fault. Did you actually read the post?

You seem to think that you are one of the 'enlightened' of our society who knows that people need to help other people. You feel that the rest of us are incapable of coming to this conclusion on our own, and therefore need to be forced to do so by the hand of government.

Government programs attempting to provide health care, family planning, and educational opportunities have sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers over the last several decades, and guess what? There are still unhealthy, illegitimate, stupid people around.
See less See more
No way Dude!!

Tell me how, exactly, the fifth amendment is alive and well, if hundreds, or thousands, of unborn people are being denied their lives every day without due process of law? (Don't even bother replying to that. I'm not going to get into it, I'm just making a point.)

How is the second amendment alive and well if we have hundreds of laws throughout the country that amount to prior restraint on an explicit, unalienable right? How could we be disarmed in many places? I think I gave you ample evidence on the opinions of the men who wrote the amendment. The second amendment is being grievously violated every day.

The freedom from torture and police harrasment has been explicitly enumerated in the constitution since the adoption of the original bill of rights. There certainly have been cases where these rights were violated, such as in the case of Elian Gonzales, and thousands of others in the history of this country. We live in a sinful world.

To the contrary, an activist court does not rule on the "law". It "usurps" the law, rendering the law meaningless. See qoute by Thomas Jefferson:

"Let there be no change by usurpation, for that is the customary method by which free governments are destroyed."

If the law is an elastic guideline that can be conformed to any idea or opinion, then what is the point of going to law school? You can argue anything you want, and that's what the law will mean.
See less See more
By the way....

This isn't, of course, directed only at you, Gabe, but have we officially gotten rid of the Squids? Not a one has posted on this topic.
Amen to that!

As the old, wise sage once said:

"To succeed at mountain biking, one must first succeed at BMX racing."
1 - 20 of 186 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.