[056]

My Last Word On Helmets.

After I post this, I will save it and repost it for the next time this comes up.

Also, I will respond to flames beforehand. Please pick the appropriate response:

1. No, YOU'RE a ******!

2. No, I do not approve of government control over our lives and personal decisions.

3. No, I am not voting for Al Gore.

WHY WE NEED HELMET LAWS

The most contentious and emotional debate among American motorcyclists is the one over helmet laws. Should society, working through a democratically elected state legislature, require motorcyclists to wear an approved safety helmet?

The US Supreme Court has made many decisions about which rights US citizens have which government may not abridge. Such rights include reproduction, interstate travel, right to contract, right to work, etc. Although these rights are not mentioned in the US Constitution, they are nevertheless protected, since the Ninth Amendment of the Bill Of Rights says that rights not enumerated in other parts of the constitution are still rights.

But, just because a person does a thing does not make it a right. Homosexual sodomy, for instance, although it affects nobody except the er, pitcher and catcher, is illegal in many states, since the Supreme Court did not hold such a practice as a right like other rights.

So what makes a right a right? The concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut tries to determine which rights are fundamental... To do this, Justices Warren, Goldberg and Brennan say courts must look to the traditions and collective conscience of our people to determine whether a principle is so rooted there as to be ranked as fundamental. Once the right is recognized, the court should then decide if that right is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions...

So we are faced with a two-tiered determination. First, the action in question must be rooted in the collective mind of our society as being fundamental. That is, a reasonable, average American (whoever THAT is) must agree, totally, that it is a fundamental right to do this thing. Next, this right cannot be denied without being an egregious attack on personal liberty.

That's why states cannot force welfare mothers to be sterilized. No reasonable person would feel that the right to reproduce is not a basic human right, and limiting that right would be outrageous. Can you imagine having to get a sex license from your city hall? Or requiring obese people to present ration card to their grocery clerks? Such notions are repugnant to anybody with even a small amount of respect for other's rights.

Let's apply this motorcycling without a helmet. Is feeling the wind in your thinning scalp at 70 MPH a right rooted in our collective mind? Would a reasonable person, without a moment's hesitation, agree that you have a right to endanger your thin skull like that?

But lets say this mythical reasonable man did such a thing. Does limiting this right outrage our sensibilities, or notions of freedom? It sure does for some people. But not enough to universally overturn helmet laws, or even the majority of the people it affects, i.e. motorcyclists. Even in states without helmet laws, over half the riders wear helmets. Presumably, if helmet laws outrageously infringed on personal liberty, there would be a massive outcry from motorcyclists of every ilk, as well as the public at large.

Continuing to play devil's advocate, let's say going helmet less IS a fundamental right. Can a state infringe on a fundamental right? The answer is yes, if the state has a compelling interest.

Here is the heart of the debate. One side says helmet laws don't do a thing for the state, and the other side says they save the state money and save human lives. Who has the heavier burden of proof?

I would say the anti-helmet law people do. If the state can save even $10,000 (to pick a random number) by requiring helmets, I would say that that is compelling enough to override the right of motorcyclists to go helmet less. Can ABATE honestly say helmet laws don't even save state a minimal amount of money? Even anti-helmet law websites acknowledge fewer head injuries in helmet law states. I would say even a tiny amount of savings negates a person's small right to feel that breeze on the pate.

But pro-helmet advocates have an easier job. The right we are sacrificing is not one exercised by reasonable people. Would you really rather smack your head hard on something without a helmet? If you posed that question to 100 people, how many would prefer no helmet? It's just not a reasonable thing to want.

There's a second argument the anti-helmet folks use. If we let them take away this right, they will keep restricting other rights until we can't ride motorcycles at all. Like appeasing Hitler, the safety nazis will just have their appetites for biker rights stoked, and hunger for even more. Funny how much this sounds like NRA rhetoric, no?

This argument operates on an assumption that I think is hard to prove. The assumption is that the safety nazis have an agenda to totally eliminate motorcycling. I have not seen any convincing proof of that. Has any state ever banned motorcycles? Have there been bills in Congress to eliminate motorcycles? Is there any official DOT, EPA or CalTrans document advocating elimination of the motorcycle? Wouldn't motorcycles have been banned a long time ago if that was the case?

The only agenda safety nazis have is to reduce injury and death. (Those self-serving bastards!) That's their job. And they are pretty good at it- whether it's helmets or education, motorcycle fatalities per mile traveled has declined since the 1970's. And they understand the law enough to realize that eliminating motorcycles completely would probably come closer to infringing on the kind of rights implicated under the Ninth Amendment.

Rather than open the door for more regulation, I feel helmet laws comfort the public at large who, lets face it, have to pay the costs of our enjoyment, whether through loud pipes, sport bikes crossing the double yellow lines at them, or paying for increased fire and police protection. With helmet laws in place, people can look at motorcyclists and say, well, it's crazy to ride a bike, but at least they have helmets on.

If the question comes down to either helmets or motorcycle, I'll pick the motorcycle. I know it's rough to have your life-style choice on display without letting people see your face, but if that's the cost of being left pretty much alone by society, then I'll happily wear my helmet.

Helmet laws are good because they do not abridge any substantial right, save at least money if not lives, and keep society off the backs of motorcyclists. How can any rational person be against it? I don't know, but I'm sure I'll hear all kinds of reasons.

 

[056]

Part II of Gabe's final word...

I would say the anti-helmet law people do. If the state can save even $10,000 (to pick a random number) by requiring helmets, I would say that that is compelling enough to override the right of motorcyclists to go helmet less. Can ABATE honestly say helmet laws don't even save state a minimal amount of money? Even anti-helmet law websites acknowledge fewer head injuries in helmet law states. I would say even a tiny amount of savings negates a person's small right to feel that breeze on the pate.

But pro-helmet advocates have an easier job. The right we are sacrificing is not one exercised by reasonable people. Would you really rather smack your head hard on something without a helmet? If you posed that question to 100 people, how many would prefer no helmet? It's just not a reasonable thing to want.

There's a second argument the anti-helmet folks use. If we let them take away this right, they will keep restricting other rights until we can't ride motorcycles at all. Like appeasing Hitler, the safety nazis will just have their appetites for biker rights stoked, and hunger for even more. Funny how much this sounds like NRA rhetoric, no?

This argument operates on an assumption that I think is hard to prove. The assumption is that the safety nazis have an agenda to totally eliminate motorcycling. I have not seen any convincing proof of that. Has any state ever banned motorcycles? Have there been bills in Congress to eliminate motorcycles? Is there any official DOT, EPA or CalTrans document advocating elimination of the motorcycle? Wouldn't motorcycles have been banned a long time ago if that was the case?

The only agenda safety nazis have is to reduce injury and death. (Those self-serving bastards!) That's their job. And they are pretty good at it- whether it's helmets or education, motorcycle fatalities per mile traveled has declined since the 1970's. And they understand the law enough to realize that eliminating motorcycles completely would probably come closer to infringing on the kind of rights implicated under the Ninth Amendment.

Rather than open the door for more regulation, I feel helmet laws comfort the public at large who, lets face it, have to pay the costs of our enjoyment, whether through loud pipes, sport bikes crossing the double yellow lines at them, or paying for increased fire and police protection. With helmet laws in place, people can look at motorcyclists and say, well, it's crazy to ride a bike, but at least they have helmets on.

If the question comes down to either helmets or motorcycle, I'll pick the motorcycle. I know it's rough to have your life-style choice on display without letting people see your face, but if that's the cost of being left pretty much alone by society, then I'll happily wear my helmet.

Helmet laws are good because they do not abridge any substantial right, save at least money if not lives, and keep society off the backs of motorcyclists. How can any rational person be against it? I don't know, but I'm sure I'll hear all kinds of reasons.

 

[056]

You missed my point...

Which was merely a legal one. To save you the trouble of re-reading my somewhat long-winded post, I will sum it up for you:

For a right to be totally unabridged by the gubernment, it must be a right fundamentally recognized as important and unabridgeable without a compelling state interest.

I agree with you- we are more than just dollar signs, and some things have no monetary value. One of the great flaws of our legal system is that money is used as the medium for righting all wrongs- there are expert witnesses whose only function is to calculate the monetary value of human life! It''s sick.

However, I just don''t understand how riding helmetless is such a compelling right that it overcomes society''s right to keep costs from preventable injury to a minumum. Nobody has made a case for it yet, although you came close.

Now let them try to ban motorcycles, which, as I''ve metioned, nobody ever has. I feel that, as an American citizen, I have a right to responsibly pursue the types of activities that make me happy, as long as I do them responsibly and don''t burden society too much.

If motorcyclists were dying like smokers, then I might support a ban on them, as well, but with only 5,000 deaths a year compared to smoking cashing in 300,000 Marlboro Men per annum, I think motorcycles will be here to stay. Conversely, if only 5,000 smokers a year died from their stinky habit, I wouldn't cheer the zillion-dollar verdicts against the tobacco companies.

Just everybody wear your ****ing helmet, and we can all shut up about this!

 

[056]

Re: Allow me to point out a bit of hypocrisy in your essay

Well, I don''t know if a small omission of the obvious constitutes hypocricy, but I agree. The safetycrats are tasked with decreasing society''s cost in injuries and death caused by helmetless motorcyclists. Thoses costs are measured in greenbacks because it''s easier than calculating, say, the gallons of tears from bereaved love ones, or hours of nursing time, or whatever.

Funny how you mention the Gulf War. I was arguing with a guy about the causes of the Civil War Friday night. I said slavery, and he said Northern Banks squeezing the South. That takes a lot away from the many thousands of Americans who died there. When the Civil War started, thousands and thousands of volunteers mobbed the recruiting stations of both sides. Did these men join up to save the banks, or so rich guys could make more money? No! They signed up because they believed in something.

I fought in the Gulf War, and was almost killed. For you to suggest I risked myself so my Mom could enjoy filling her Volvo with $.99 gasoline is kinda insulting, as well as absurd.

The same goes for the safety nazis. I'm sure there's a lot of self-seeking people who don't care about people. But there's also a lot of beauracrats and safety advocates who work long hours, for not a lot of personal gain, because they believe they are doing a good thing. Please name one safetycrat who got rich advocating traffic safety. Ralph Nader? He has like one suit and sleeps in his office!

Your idea for subsidizing helmets is a great idea, and I wonder if there are government funds availiable for helmet R&D. In California, there is a program like that for child safety seats for low-income motorists.

The flaw in your plan is that you assume that 50% of riders in no-helmet-law states go helmetless because they can''t afford a helmet. That''s just ridiculous. If you can buy a motorcycle, you can afford the $200 to buy a good helmet. But, I support such a scheme for low-income motorcylists. In fact, I think motorcyclists should get tax breaks because they impact roads, parking and traffic less and use less fuel.

Thanks for not insulting me!

Gabe

 

[056]

VFR vs. Biker Smackdown!

I would put my money on the sportbike guys, since they are more likely to be physically fit, as well as younger. Many of the Harley guys I see are overweight and kinda old.

Now, if this was 1966, that would be a different story.

 

[056]

It's sad assholes like you are taught how to type...

The guy you insulted had a perfectly good point, and you attack him personally. Why? It sad, because it's people like you that chill intelligent discourse.

And yes, everytime you get on your bike you should assume you're gonna crash. (or assume to hit our dead as you so eloquently put it.) As you say, with surprising clarity in your last line, Life is about taking risks, managing risks and hopefully living through risks. Right. So wear your ****ing helmet!

 

[056]

Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

Good point. But still, if I think helmet laws are a good idea, just because Aetna agrees with me doesn't make it a bad one. Does a bad motive rule out a good one?

Also, your floodgate argument doesn't pan out. Laws are passed, in general, when there's a compelling need for them, not just at the whim of a few people. No, really.

 

[056]

Re: It's sad assholes like you care about my head...

I ride because I feel the enjoyment outweighs the risks, but why not mitigate the risks by assuming you will crash everytime you ride? I usually don't, but I often do. (4 times this year, in fact! And I was unhurt every time, because I prepare for it.)

If you think just living by an airport or hanging out with fat people is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, you need to stop dropping so much LSD.

 

[056]

Re: VFR vs. Biker Smackdown!

The sportriders I know are ATHLETES, with lots of physical endurance and upper body strength. As far as posers go, some are fat, some thin, some muscular.

 

[056]

Re: Part II of Gabe's final word...

Yes, to ban high-powered sportbikes. NOt ban motorcycles completely.

What's your point?

 

[056]

Well,

at least I don't use the word undefensable. Also, my knowledge of law goes deeper than the Supreme Court can't tell me what to do!

 

[056]

The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

Always good to hear from the lunatic fringe of the meat-packing world! Boy, Abe, you sure sound lucid- I think you have read a lot of ultra-conservative rhetoric, but have a fuzzy understanding of Constitutional Law. I''ll respond to your points one by one.

1. The Supreme Court has uconstitutionally usurped its power to legislate. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide what rights are defenendable(sic)and which are not.

Well, Abe, if the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, it''s the first I''ve heard of it. I''d love to reference some reputable legal scholars who agree with you. But there''s a long, long body of cases, going back to Marbury v. Madison, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide on the Constitutional validity of state and Federal legislation. When you say that the Supreme Court was never intended to decide which rights were protected, I would respond that the Supreme Court, as well as every other branch of government, does lots of things they weren''t specifically intended to do. However, Article III, section 2[1] of the US Constitution says; The Judical Power shall extend...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party... The power is extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to include overseeing privleges and immunities. I just don''t see how you can say the Court has no right to decide on what liberties should be protected.

2.The court has used this amendment to force many kinds of unpopular legislation upon the people over the years, the most repugnant being a non-existent right to privacy which was the basis for an abortion mandate.

Uh-oh! Right to life rhetoric alert! Do you really think having a right to privacy is repugnant? You don''t like legal abortion, and I understand that. But many Americans do. Just because legislation is unpopular doesn''t make it illegitimate or wrong. If that was true, there would be no laws at all, which I know is what you want, but non-looneys don''t want to live in a lawless society, thanks very much!

3. The ninth amendment does not guarantee any rights in particular, it merely states that there are rights, not specifically enumerated, that exist. The enumerated rights should be enough

to provide for the protection of so-called unenumerated rights, provided that the enumerated

rights are themselves respected.

Yeah, that''s exactly what I said! Except without the so-called part, which I think you added, since MY copy of the Constitution lacks that bit.

I mean, if a right isn''t enumerated, it must be unenumerated, right?

4. Provided that manufacture, sale, and possession of contraceptives was legal, property rights, rights against search and seizure, and the fifth amendment (due process of law) should be enough to protect those that wish to use contraceptives.

Sure, until the Christian Right passes laws requiring infra-red SexPolice cameras in the bedroom, since you say there''s no such thing as a right to privacy! And what''s to prevent the Chrietian Right from passing legislation outlawing the sale, distribution and possesion of birth control, since we have no right to it?

4. The law against contraceptives was constitutional, since any rights not enumerated are reserved to the the states and the people. If popularity for a law against contraceptives was high enough, passing a law against contraceptives is perfectly constitutional.

That logic isn''t quite as solid as one of your Kielbasas, Abe! I''m glad it''s not true, since I could list a litany of unjust laws that were perfectly popular through the ages, from Jim Crow to anti-asian immigration laws, to laws against Jews and Communists, all the way up to the present anti-homosexual witch hunt in the military. Abe for Fuhrer! I mean, uh, president.

6. However, the other specifically enumerated rights previously mentioned would make prosecution difficult at best. Property rights and protection against search and seizure would effectively prohibit the gathering of evidence.

Oh you bet they would! Just tell that to the million or so folks in prison sitting out petty drug-offense sentences!

Do us all a favor, Mr. Froman: Keep making the sausages, and leave criminal defense to the pros!

All the Fourth Amendment guarantees is that the government maust furnish a warrant before busting into your bedroom to search your nightstand for Trojans. Ask a DA how hard it is to get a warrant, (especially in Chicago!) and say that stuff again with a straight face.

Actually, I don''t know what all this has to do with helmet laws- someone said they have a right to not wear a helmet, and I responded. I guess your response indicates you agree- since there is no mention of helmets in the bill of rights, we have no right to go helmetless? Or is your argument that the government has no legitimacy, so all laws are meaningless?

I''m staying away from Chicago!

 

[056]

Oh no, its the Gestapo!

I hate it when people bandy about terms like gestapo or nazis. It really is insulting to people who's families were murdered by real nazis.

Who are these gestapo? How many people have they murdered? How much speech have they surpressed? Has even one person been savegely beaten by DOT thugs?

How does a safety device on your head prevent your back from breaking? Well, actually there's a post above that addresses that exact point. But I also wear a back protector when I ride. In any case, there's a lot more head injuries than spinal cord injuries. Also, there's nothing you can wear on a bike to prevent every kind of spinal cord injury. But a helmet can prevent a LOT of head injury (but not all) so why not wear it, since it doesn't significantly hurt anything.

When it is their or our turn to die it will happen. No amount of safety gear will help you.

Boy am I glad I'm not you! If I was I'd be dead!

About ten years ago, I was in a lil' 'ol coubtry called Kuwait. When the Ground War started, I was a machine gunner on a Humm-vee. We drove into a mine field (long story), and my truck was blown to bits.

I was totally unhurt, because we had armored the floor with sandbags, and I was wearing a flak vest and helmet. There were rips on my helmet cover from shrapnel. If God really wanted to collect me that day, he could have, I guess, but I survived.

Also, I've crashed about 15 times since I first started riding. I had a helmet on every single time. I've never had more than a superficial injury. Would I have survived every crash helmetless? Maybe. But would you bet $100 on it?

 

[056]

Damn Straight!

Is it just me, or do pro-helmet law advocates spell better?

Anyway, very well said. I wanted to emphasise that I feel helmet laws keep government off the back of responsible motorcycle enthusiasts, while discouraging the reckless poseurs that are the REAL threat to our sport, but you said it better than me.

 

[056]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

Oh really? I'll bet those guys have crashed hundreds of times! I've crashed a lot because I've ridden for 13 years, and have raced for 6.

Maybe you can ride better than me, but I know I ride better than most riders.

Most of these crashes were pretty minor affairs.

If you were more than a sunny sunday poseur, you'd have a lot more crashes as well.

 

[056]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

Wow! What thoughtful and witty repartee! I guess my appropriate reply should be, (say with a nasal, whiney tone) No, YOU shut the f*&k up!

Seriously, what in the above post do I know nothing about? How do I display my idiocy? Just curious.

 

[056]

Re: Damn Straight!

Not a rocket scientist, but someone with the courtesy and insight to want to post a thought-out, researched, easy-to-read commentary, rather than spouting out hearsay and stream-of-consciousness gibberish.

 

[056]

Touchy, touchy!

Wow, Abe, it sure doesn't take much to set you off! But you obviously only disagree on 3 of my points, or you just don't have time to respond to the others.

Of course the Supreme Court gave itself some power. It had to, since there wasn't any other branch of governement availiable to do the things they now do. And since they've had that power for close to 200 years, I'm assuming most folks feel it's OK.

Yes, government-funded abortion would violate the 5th amendment (but remember, Abe, the 5th amendment, as most of the bill of rights does, only protects from Government action.), but only if EVERYBODY agreed that first or second trimester embryos were a human life. That's a modern-day christian thing, and although you can call me names for disagreeing with you, it doesn't make you right. Talmudic scholars feel a life doesn't become human until the "quickening", and the law follows that. So don't come from the position of absolute truth. You are entitled to your opinion on this and I respect it, but it's far from objective reality. Just your opinion.

"The majority of the laws you just stated were unconstitutional. And if you want to believe that

homosexuals are good for our armed forces, fine. Obviously you've never spent any time serving them. I challenge you to find a military officer that will agree with you. "

Sure, those laws are unconstitutional NOW! But Jim Crow lasted 80 years before being struck down by the courts. You said that if everybody likes a law, it's constitutional. I said no. It's tyranny of the majority, Abe, something our founding fathers abhored.

As far as gays in the military, I spent 7 years in the armed forces, 4 as an NCO. And I don't have a problem with it. (No, I'm not gay.) For a very interesting and in-depth discussion of the problem, read Randy Shilts' "Conduct Unbecoming", if you're not afraid of hearing opinions contrary to your own.

As far as my anti-christian bias, I have no idea of what you're talking about. I never called you a racist, and my "fuherer" comment was just to poke fun at your implication that the majority is always right. Sorry if I offended you. Also, I challenge YOU to find evidence of this so-called witch hunt. I have never heard of anybody jailed, fired, or even bad-mouthed officially for being a christian. The only problem I have with fundamental christianity is when the movement tries to pass laws and dictate policy that tells me and my family what to do. As a jew, I don't want to be christian, so keep your opinions and morality to yourself and your community. I can think for myself.

I have plenty of respect for Christians, from Martin Luther King, jr to the many hundreds of churches and christian groups dedicated to human rights and charity world wide. If you think because I am leary of the christian right influencing legislators I hate all christians, you need to start using Prozac.

 

[056]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

You're right! That's why I'll be at Sears Point tomorrow, practicing!

Have fun at work!

 

[056]

Wow! Deep thoughts!

And very well written! I wanted to grab my itchfork and join the mobs of oppressed workers on the streets, ready to storm the ramparts of the the powerful thugs!

But then I looked outside, and do you know what I saw? I saw ordinary people, walking and talking on the sidewalks, I saw cars driving up and down the street, I saw delivery trucks making their deliveries, a police car driving along, the mailman whistling as he made his rounds.

Your impassioned speech would make a lot more sense if you really DID live in a repressive regime, like North Korea or China. But I just don't see things the way you do. I think there is a lot of economic and social oppurtunity in this country, and everyone almost benefits from our system just the way it is. I really can't think of one thing the government won't let me do that I really want to do.

But you are 100% right. It is all about an almost theological difference. Some people believe living in a well-ordered society with a strong, stable federal government and powerful judiciary is a good thing. Then there are those who would rather live in some kind of libertarian anarchy, with only their fists and private business to protect their interests.

Guess which side I'm on?

Bravo for a well-writen post.

Gabe, the morally inferior being motivated by self-interest.