Motorcycle Forums banner
241 - 260 of 272 Posts

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
Re: Nothing to do with helmets

Again you are reading between the lines instead of what is on them. You have NO PROOF of anything you just said up there. Just shows you KPaul how you talk yourself into what you want to believe. That is called believing your own BS. The FACTS are sportbikes are causing an insurance company massive losses. NO helmet law here in Illinois and Allstate writes coverage no problem. Why not the 320% loss you just predicted? Because it's BS and you know it. You claimed in earlier discussions that cruisers were accidents waiting to happen. "Sitting ducks" was the term and now you just approved a rate increase for safe sportbikes! Can you contradict yourself any more and appear to know anything?
 

·
Super Duper Mod Man
Joined
·
10,479 Posts
Sorry but associated with all that "replacing plasitic" are injuries. Those cost 10 to 100 times the plastic. Like I said 9 second 180 mph bikes are killers and we can all figure that out. If helmets made a big difference, the insureance companies would give us a break here in Illinois for wearing one. The only differences are age and type of bike. Helmets aren't even in the equasion for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,597 Posts
Re: The AMA advocates helmet use Burnsie

Well then I'm dumb. If they support use of helmets, how can they also be pals with ABATE? You'll have to `splain that to me. As far as I'm concerned, if one kid brains himself as the result of Uncle Bob, or Billy down at the meat packing plant who's a big ABATE guy, persuading him not to wear a helmet in the name of Freedom--then that one kid is one too many, and his blood is on ABATE's hands. And the AMA is an accessory to the crime. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Freedoms are great, but when freedoms affect the health, safety, or pocketbooks of other members of the society in which you choose to live, guidelines are put in place in the interests of fairness. There are plenty of times I would prefer to ride without a helmet, but I know it's a generally stupid thing to do. I am completely in favor of society heavily taxing the things that directly or indirectly cost society lots of money: gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, firearms, children; and eliminating the income tax (after all, unless you're employed by the government, your having a job doesn't cost society much)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
As a matter of fact, the cost of caring for smoking related illness far exceeds the cost of caring for those injured riding motorcycles without helmets, or those riding with helmets , for that matter. Your point is well taken and significant to this argument - how does it make sense to require individuals to wear helments yet allow them to smoke or do any of the many other activities that create risk of injury or illness? It doesn't. A corallary argument is that the more we regulate, the less we require or motivate individuals to make those 'quality decisions'.

My 'quality decision' is to always wear full protective gear so I'll be able to continue participating in debates such as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,904 Posts
Re: Regulations are good for you

Nice strawman argument you set up there. That one wasn't too easy to kick down was it?

Can't I just reverse it and say that a lot of riders die or get injured even while wearing helmets so we should just make motorcycling illegal altogether? I wasn't aware that all riders who wear helmets have great medical insurance and don't cost the taxpayers anything.

In fact we should just have the government regulate all activities deemed "too dangerous."

Rock climbing, waterskiiing, jogging, etc. I would guess illegal aliens cost taxpayers more money in hospital emergency rooms than all unhelmeted riders combined.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Maybe it's just me, but that seemed quite a stretch for an illustration on this particular topic.



I would contend that giving information out on paper isn't exactly a restriction, it's a voluntary release of your right to privacy. In comparison to the helmet law thing, I would point out that Uncle Sam (BB, whatever), isn't MAKING people do this stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,904 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

It's nice to see you peace-loving left wingers getting angry and telling people to f off.

There is no constitutaional argument here. The 10th amendment clearly delegates powers to the states.

The whole notion that unhelmeted riders are a burden to the taxpayer is an total fallacy. Plenty of out of control Arai-helmeted squids get toted off in the meat wagon every weekend. I'll bet they don't have insurance!

I wear my helmet happily and would even if there was no law. I just don't believe in the state targeting one segment of society for helmet use when we could certainly make the case that everyone should be wearing a helmet even while driving.

Your rich /poor analysis is classic bitter, jealous, socialist crap and is ignorant at best and dangerous at worst. Sadly, that's the kind of drivel jammed down the throats of our college students today by angry little professors who have never lived in the real world.

Ride free bro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
The lamest excuse for legislating helmet use is that it cost tax payers money to keep head injured victims on life support. So what. Our tax money also gets distributed, without my support, to every third world country with their hand out. In fact our taxes get wasted on every pork barrel project that our head injured elected officials can dream up. Burnsie doesn't seem to like anyone except his own family so what does he care if there is a person out there risking his cranium. The answer of course is that he doesn't give a rats ass. He just decided to get on the wrong side of the helmet issue and then start complaining about ABATE and the AMA. It takes alot more effort and committment to accomplish the things they do then to sit down at a computer and pontificate as Burns does. It also seems that crotch rocket riders want to ride at a high rate of speed. I would think, yes, they should wear a helmet because the likelyhood of leaving the confines of a road at 120 mph and striking and an inanimate object and ending up on life support regardless of having that helmet on is a very likely possibility. The vast majority of bikers don't ride on a race track or even live near a track. Hell yes, if I rode my bike on a race track I'd sure as hell wear a helmet and leathers. It seems like all the motojournalist spend alot of time testing 150 mph+ bikes on race tracks and then when they leave the race tracks they seem to have left their balls back at the track. Just because you scare the ***** out of yourselves all day on the track doesn't mean the rest of us are riding like that on the streets. I grew up in Iowa where personal freedoms are still a way of life. When freedom to choose is stripped away little by little you talk yourself into agreeing with those that took your freedom because it is the path of least resistance. The AMA and ABATE have chosen the harder path. Burns may think that ABATE is full of dirt bags but then that is a right that hasn't been taken from him yet. Maybe short folks won't be allowed to pass on their genes. You'd be in trouble then Burns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Burns, you are an ass. Laws exist because this country is going to hell in a hand basket. You want cell phones banned. How about crotch rockets going 180 mph or even being able to. I'm sure that pisses alot of folks off. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that should be outlawed or banned is lawmakers. I see you have a cig in your mouth in that photo. What if they ban your ability to fire one up because of all the known dangers of doing so. That would ***** you off wouldn't it. I say if you want to tar up your lungs then go right ahead. If you do it in a closed room that I'm in I should be able to jam it down your throat without it being a crime to do so. It's only fair, assault my lungs and have your face assaulted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Who cares? Or, in the alternative, why don't we stop wasting time and money on this idiotic "freedom" issue and spend some of it on doing things that would actually improve the lot of riders. Like legalizing lane splitting outside of California.



I just got back from a 1200 mile trip. All of the states that I travelled have helmet laws. And there they were. Manly cruiser riders in their half helmets; muscle shirts and deck shoes motivating along at 70 mph. With a beautiful youn woman on the back resplendent in her tube top, bikini bottom and sandals. With a Snell approved helmet, of course.



And the squidly Zip 'n; Splats? Same outfits. Full face helmets.



I have seen the ABATE lobbyist here in PA. He is very well dressed and is not missing many meals. He talks a really mean fight about this fundamental freedom issue. But I'm still standing still in traffic sweating my ass off when I could be slowly, carefully making progress forward.



This anti-helmet law lobby has become a larger than cottage industry. And the problem, Johnny B., is that we are missing the financial boat. Time for you to fire up the old Print Shop software and do up some really clever anti-helmet stickers to sell at the next poker run. Or at Sturgis!



Fame and fortune await!



gbm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
"Like I said 9 second 180 mph bikes are killers and we can all figure that out."



Wrong, wrong , wrong. I can get myself dead just as easily on a 55 mph scooter as on a Hayabusa or R1. The insurance rates have everything to do with the rider and nothing to do with the bike. It's just that younger people like myself are too stupid to fear death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

That's right: my objection to the trade in human flesh is because I'm "jealous." If I were a reasonable person, I'd just accept the utopian view that the "free market" should decide who lives and who dies.

BTW: when I was in college, I was a libertarian. Then I grew up. But I'm willing to accept your judgement that my views were forced upon me by angry little college professors if you're willing to admit that yours were forced down your throat by cynical, obese AM radio talk show hosts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Well, all right then, I guess someone already wrote my comment. Then, like the Declaration of Independance, a well written document which only needed to be written once and signed many, sign my name to what Mr. Froman said above. It's not about the helmets. It's about the government getting too big for its britches.

-Ochressandro Rettinger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I am someone who will ALWAYS wear a helmet. El_Flaco is right when he calls helmets a "No Brainer." BUT, the issue is that the government should not be telling me I MUST wear a helmet. I'm so sick of the government trying to protect everyone all of the time. If I want to be a moron a bash my skull in, who cares? What ever happened to natural selection? Laws like mandatory seat belts, and manatory helmets should not exsist for grown adults. We're able to make our own decisions, and guess what, that means the government should let us even make stupid ones. How does me not wearing a helmet effect somebody else? It's ME who's now a vegetable! Before you know it it wll be illegal for people to run with scissors in their hands, count your chickens before they've hatched, spit into the wind, and not wear motorcycle helmets....oh wait, that one IS a law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,904 Posts
Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Ahhh trade in human flesh! Such drama! It's also quite a conspiracy theory. The evil rich people get the states to allow young, wild squids to ride without helmets so they can kill themselves and we can harvest their organs.

Sounds like a Stanley Kubrick movie brewing here. Can I have two tickets to the premiere?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Vmarsch Is Also Off Base

'...obviously good public policy."

How dare you? Are you one who believes that your thoughts and desires equate to what's best for all citizens?

Individuality and libertarian thinking are the heart and soul of what's good about this country.

Mindless adherence to poorly conceived social leveling and an inability to countenance non-majority views indicates someone who is already gone.

Risk is distrobuted in this society only because weak, soul-less, victims and their patrons in the 'feel good' segment demanded it from a weak central government.

I'd rather have risk distributed solely on the basis of who takes it. THe costs society absorbs through medical care and related expenses is voluntary on the part of society.

Too much rant.

Vmarsch, I hope I seldom meet people like you.
 
241 - 260 of 272 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