[mconlon]

...actually I wear my helmet because its way cool. Ususally I put it on with my gloves and full leathers, use a towel for a cape, stand in front of the mirror, breathe heavy, and with my best James Earl Jones voice, say, "Join us! There is power in the Dark Side!"



My boy thinks it is the funniest thing he's ever seen; my wife thinks I'm a dork.



But I'm free, free to ride, free to make a fool of myself in my own home... and not get hassled by The Man!

 

[mconlon]

Geez, look at that, now MO is infringing on my God and government-given right to free speech... There must me some automatic no-no word censoring software built into the system? That should read as a legitimate, non-offensive phrase: pus*y-footing.

 

[twister299]

Re: John Burns: an exercise in contradiction

Hear, Hear, you are 100% correct the Federal gov. will say that it is a state issue and tell you to talk to your state Reps. Realistically most states could not afford to thumb their noses at Uncle Sam. The first thing that needs to happen is to make it a Federal Crime to extort the states, then there needs to be a movement to consolidate laws across the country. Why should something be legal in Florida and illegal in California??? That makes no sense. The funniest thing is that California has always been the land of Open roads and freedom, and Florida where everyone knows your business and wants to make IT against the law. (T-backs in your own back yard for example). Now we can ride helmet less and you can't. We can get a conceal firearm permit and you can't. Go figure. I spent 10 years in law enforcement and I came to one conclusion. There are too many laws and no one has time to enforce them all. I went by the simple idea that if it looks wrong it has to be illegal, so stop that guy and them look it up.

Riding a bike without and helmet just doesn't look wrong. BTW we don't have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle but kids under 16 do on a bicycle. Like I said, Go figure.

 

[NortonVFR]

Of course, John is correct that life is not fair. Helmet laws are a good example of this truism, since the underlying motivations are dislike of bikers and tax revenue. It's also true that we need to pick our battles and focus on the issues that are really important to us - ensuring the availablility of 200 MPH sportbikes for example. So, should we just accept this government interference and move on? I don't think so.



Helmet laws are not the only example of vehicular oppression in our society. Seat belt laws and unnaturally low speed limits are also oppressive. These laws have one thing in common - the State has a financial incentive to oppress you. As we all know, money is the root of all evil. It can even corrupt the legal system by incenting legislators to outlaw perfectly rational and ethical behaviors. Although it may be prudent to wear a helmet, buckel up or drive slowly, it is not unethical to forgo these things. Which is precisely why these laws generate so much tax revenue - people will continue to make rational choices, even if its illegal to do so. No just society should seek to outlaw reasonable, ethical behavior.



When you get in your car in the morning to drive to work, what is the probability that you will have an accident on that particular trip? Infintesimal. If you are motivated to buckel up by fear of an accident, then you are motivated by an irrational fear. The technical term for this is "Phobia". Forgoing the seat belt is a perfectly rational, ethical and healthy choice. Your Mom may insist that you put on your seatbelt, because mothers are supposed to be motivated by irrational fears. However, in a free society, the Government is not your mother.



Of course, over your life time, the probability of an accident may be quite high. However, confusing statistics and ethics is one of the greatest falicies in our society. When considering death or injury statitistics always remember one overriding truth - there is a 100% probability that you will die. Accident statistics are not about death, only about the timing of death. How you live is at least as important as how long you live. A life without risk is often a pretty dull life. A free society grants individuals the right to make choices about risk, as long as they are not placing others is jeopardy.



Finally, I wanted to address notion of "the cost to society" of irresponsible behavior. If our goal is to reduce this cost, then a rational society would go through the following process:



- List all irresponsible behaviors and their cost

- Rank them by the total cost to society

- Use society's limited resources to eliminate the most costly behaviors.

- Ignore the behaviors at the bottom of the list.



If we did this, the costs of irresponsible bikers would rank near the bottom of the list. Obesity, drinking, smoking and other irresponsible behaviours enjoyed by the vast majority of Americans would rank near the top. If we really want to reduce medical costs, let's outlaw fat people. That's were you will get the biggest bang for the buck.



Should we oppose helmet laws? Sure. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we don't fight them over helmets, they may come back for our Big Macs.

 

[yzf1070]

I don't drink, but you don't see me whining about paying social security to all the people with sclerosis of the liver due to lifelong alcohol use. And I would wager that many more of our tax dollars goes to them than to any helmet-less crash survivors. It's as simple as this, there are costs that go along with living in the best country on earth. I don't even think I want to know the truth about how much crap my tax dollars pay for that I don't use, want, or probably even like. But the fact of the matter is that I will pay so long as I still believe that this country, flaws and all, is still the best in the world. Don't you people see that they are using the most powerful weapon in their arsenal against you? Your own greed! Don't be blinded by the propaganda. How much do you really think those helmet-less riders who are unlucky enough to survive a crash cost you in comparison to all the government waste like the national helium reserve!? Or maybe the huge tax loopholes for mega corporation's executives who happened to fund the current parties’ campaign. Wake up people it's slight of hand on a global scale. "Nothing up my sleeve". JB you claim that all this time could be better spent on legitimate legislative concerns, I say your right! So why don't you and all the other "But I'm paying for your behavior!" crybabies, stop whining about the .0000000018 of a penny you spent on all the injured helmet-less riders last week and start worrying about the hundreds, or thousands that went elsewhere.

 

[CheezSorce]

There is no logic in the argument, if we take what appears to be logic and principle we should be able to apply it to all situations and make it work. Until we have a defined model life that is entitled to 100% support when in need we should not pick on anyone society. Drivers of cars would go close to eliminating head injuries if they wore helmets when driving, but we don't make them. Many diseases are caused by bad diet or the consequences of bad diet and lack of exercise and they still receive the benefits of health insurance.



There is no logic in the system, numbers rule, minority groups are held to a higher standard than the masses. As a minority group we will be required to demonstrate our argument in a socially acceptable way. We will not win by being overtly in the face of the masses and showing them how stupid they are.



The likelyhood of death in a motorcycle accident is double that of a car from recent statistics, with that knowledge we can decide if we wish to take at least some precautions. If we insist that all riders wear helmets then it would be good to see all car drivers wear seatbelts and helmets but it won't happen. Imagine getting your 70 year old Grandmother to put on her helmet.



We all want a system that allows us to make our own responsible decision, you just know that we will not all agree. If we base everthing on the cost of the individual to the rest of us then I beleive the statistics will show that not wearing helmets is not such a high cost. But the value that a family would place on having a lost one at home is never measured in statistics. We have children so that we might leave a leggacy, what will they think of our decisions.



Where can we find an honest statitian to reveiw all the data objectively. For me I'm wearing a full face until someone demonstrates to me that I would be better of without it.

 

[36962]

yeah WHOOO! Preach it, bruthuh!!! Kin ah git an aaaayyyy-MEN!

 

[seruzawa]

Public school edycated, aren't you?

 

[36962]

no no no, the congress represents us crazies, and proposes the laws we think we want at the moment, and the senate balances that supposedly by beiong able to take a longer term view (that's why the senate has 6 year terms, and the congress has two year terms)...the judicial branch makes judgements based on those laws, as well as reviewing them for constitutionality. all three are suposed to balance each other. I think.

 

[yzf1070]

Eating fatty foods is stupid. Drinking alcohol, even socially, is stupid. Snow skiing is stupid. Drinking soda is stupid. Driving fossil fuel vehicles is stupid. Having individual means of transportation is stupid. Scuba diving is stupid. Owning a TV is stupid. Making clothes in more than one color/style is stupid. Crossing the road where there is no crosswalk is stupid. White water rafting is stupid. Having sex is stupid.





Everything is considered stupid by somebody.

 

[twister299]

Re: Helmet Laws

Good points all, but please tell me how my wife wearing a sting bikini, me carrying a concealed firearm or you walking in a cave in a state park impinges on anyone’s freedoms. I have said it many times in debates; it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. And I will make the ONLY good argument for requiring people to wear seatbelt. If you are driving a car and need to make a violent maneuver to avoid some yahoo without a helmet that just got hit in the face by a bee. You will stay in your seat behind the wheel and be able to drive. Believe me I was a cop and jumped in the car many times to chase some bad guy, forgot the seatbelt and found myself driving from the passenger side of the car (bench seats you know) NO FUN bouncing off the roof.

Anyway, if Republicans would get out of my Private life they make the most sense. Governments don’t need to save the world just keep the light on OK!

 

[36962]

Y'know, this scintilating palaver regarding the infamous "cost to society of disabled non-helmeted riders" is all well and good, but ultimately, who gives a rat's ass?



The helmet question is ultimately one of self interest. If you fall off, there's no guarantee you aren't gonna crack your head on the pavement, an event from which, we all know, nothing good will come. In that light, not wearing a lid is stupid, and lazy.



Due to my own self-interest, I don't wanna hurt my head, or wind up dead thru laziness.

 

[holybejesus]

Regardless of helmet laws, whether or not the taxpayer pays for vegetables lying in beds, we would never see a difference in our taxes - the government would never pass such savings on to us. In the world of death we are still a minority and do not make up the majority of sick or near death individuals out there sucking up our tax dollars. So...now it it is just a matter of freedom. Personally I wear a helmet and my biggest fear is seeing some other dude's head splattered on the road. From that standpoint I wish folks would keep their brains contained in the event of an accident.

 

[3793]

I agree 100% with punishing any driver who causes an accident because they are distracted(cell phones, eating, shaving, whatever). The tough part on misfortune, is deciding the line between stupidity and accident. I know folks that have died in motorcycle accidents due to animals literally crashing into them. I also know folks that have died due strictly to their own negligence. Each citizen is responsible for their actions and fate, and if they (or I) happen to have bad luck, society as a whole has no responsibility to financially support the consequences.

 

[twister299]

Good points all, but please tell me how my wife wearing a sting bikini, me carrying a concealed firearm or you walking in a cave in a state park impinges on anyone’s freedoms. I have said it many times in debates; it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. And I will make the ONLY good argument for requiring people to wear seatbelt. If you are driving a car and need to make a violent maneuver to avoid some yahoo without a helmet that just got hit in the face by a bee. You will stay in your seat behind the wheel and be able to drive. Believe me I was a cop and jumped in the car many times to chase some bad guy, forgot the seatbelt and found myself driving from the passenger side of the car (bench seats you know) NO FUN bouncing off the roof.

Anyway, if Republicans would get out of my Private life they make the most sense. Governments don’t need to save the world just keep the light on OK!



BTW I found if you respond to a post your rantings get buried down with the original and not with the newest posts if you sort that way.

 

[longride]

It's funny how everyone is howling about helmetless riders causing this and that, but the last time I checked Allstate stopped writing policies on motorcycles in California. Check this out:

"Allstate Insurance Company

California Region

Date: July 13, 2001

To: Allstate Exclusive Agents & Independent Agents

Re: Motorcycle/3-wheel ATV Policy Sales - Effective August 1, 2001

The adverse results that we have experienced for some time with the Allstate motorcycle line of insurance continue to worsen. In May, our YTD new

business loss ratio in California for the motorcycle line was a very unacceptable 160.5%. To help address this situation, effective on August 1, 2001, no new

motorcycle and 3-wheel all terrain vehicle (ATV) business may be written in any of the Allstate companies.

In an effort to service the California motorcycle/ATV market and to provide agencies with an outlet to write motorcycle/ATV business, effective August 1,

2001, we will allow eligible agents to sell insurance for motorcycles and 3-wheel all terrain vehicles through Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (OSIC),

A.M. Best "A" Rated and an affiliates company of the McGraw Group of Affiliated Companies. In order to be eligible to write new motorcycle/ATV business

with PSIC/McGraw, you must first be appointed by PSIC/McGraw.

We have taken this action to allow Allstate an opportunity to evaluate the motorcyle situation, prepare a business plan to address it, and resume the sale

of new policies in the near future. There are many issues to address. For example, our existing rating plan is only partially designed for the types of

motorcycles in today's market. We are not surcharging high performance or sports bikes like our competitors are doing, which is contributing to adverse

selection.

Well there it is Johnny. Check the bold type(a little KPaul effect). Guess whats next on the plate for laws there in Californy John ole bud? Yep them sporty bikes. Like you said the stupid easy ones get solved and anyone can figure 9 second 180 mph sport bikes are killers. Anyone can figure that out right John? I guess those helmet laws weren't enough, and the other guys here are right about that.

 

[36967]

Great Point,

I only hope that fellow riders will not have to experience the pain of having to visit

the family of a riding buddy and tell them he is never coming home. Next time you go

for a ride look your wife and kids straight in the eye and tell them you don't love them

enough to wear the very best riding gear. Hey it's more important on how you look

isn't it? Use common sense and fight for the rights that are most important, if we don't

we all lose. Right now insurance companies are starting to refuse medical coverage

to motorcycle riders and who can blame them. It's more important that we all get to

keep on riding so look at the big picture.

 

[fr21555]

ABC failed to point out that other states do not have the problems with increasing injuries due to bikers forgoing helmet use. I remember the story was an illustration of what happened in Florida, not necessarily reflective of a nationwide pattern.



The hospital EMT's comment was great, when told the minimum insurance required is $10,000 in Florida to ride without a helmet. "we can spend that in twenty minutes in here". I bet they can! Look at the medical industry in this nation, they make Enron look like chump change. Could it be that they're charging too much? Nah. Remember, medical insurance isn't for making you well through good care, it's there to make sure the doctor and the hospital get paid. Live or die, they gotta get paid.



It's funny, I always thought that as an adult, I had the right to make choices about my life. I also thought insurance was a contract I made with a company that takes the financial risk for me if I become hurt or killed. Isn't that why I pay premiums? Yeah, helmets can save lives but there are no guarantees with anything when it comes to riding. Nothing short of complete dominion over time and space is going to prevent us from getting into accidents with stupid cagers. They are still the bigger problem.

 

[Emperor_Vir]

Re: Helmet Laws

Actually it's the dummiecrats that want to tax and legislate everything out of existence, enact speech codes, quotas, etc. The pubbies are the ones most likely to side with your idea of limited government powers.

 

[585]

Great arguments here folks. Support of liberty, freedom and all that Americans have fought for over the centuries.



Well, I don't really don't care about this particular aspect of liberty, because I wear a helmet all the time, so it doesn't affect me at all.



Just like most of the non-helmet wearing folks around my area also have open pipes and the V-Twin attitude, and could care less about my rights to some peace and quiet, and the ability to go about my business without being held up by 50 helmetless riders roaring along in formation at 10 per under the limit.

Just like they don't care that because of their casual attitude to protection and financial responsibility, my insurance rates and taxes go up every time they mess up.



And that is the basis of most decisions about why the authorities want helmet laws: because the majority of voters are tired of the selfish behavior of a large segment of riders, and will use the easiest target to go after them.



I hear the pro-rights folks spouting off about how unsafe helmets are, how they restrict vision, cause neck injuries, overheat the brain. The same riders who can't see because they have bugs in their eyes, and probably not much brain to affect anyway.

Funny how the same helmetless, freedom-loving riders ride their snowmobiles in winter in fullface helmets, without a murmur.

Funny how majority of the time their bikes spend on the road is while loaded on their airbag and seatbelt equipped trucks. Of course, these are the same folks who demand the 'freedom' to purchase these full-size trucks and SUVs because they feel much safer than in smaller vehicles...



Bring on the helmet laws. And the anti-noise laws. And enforce the bar-height laws. And maybe even introduce some mandatory protective gear laws. Definitely target all rider gatherings for alcohol consumption monitoring.

It won't affect me. It may intrude on the freedom of a bunch of other folks, but I don't care.

After all, they don't care about infringing on my rights to peace and quiet, and lower taxes.

Targeting the weekend wannabes may reduce the ranks of the born-again bikers, and return a bit of sanity to my life.