MI Govn'r Granholm: 'Helmets Save Lives.'
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
"We think your head needs to be protected," she [Granholm] added.
Same line will be used when motorcycles get speed restrictors and horsepower limits.
Of the socialists must love this individuals making decisions for themselves is really such a bad thing.
Same line will be used when motorcycles get speed restrictors and horsepower limits.
Of the socialists must love this individuals making decisions for themselves is really such a bad thing.
Full NASCAR roll cages in cars, along with crash helmets, nomex suits, 5 point safety belts, fuel cells and rigid testing and qualifications of drivers would save lives too. You could execute drunk drivers and jaywalkers, and they would only do it once. How about eliminating private vehicles? There are lots of things that politicians could do to, and I bet they are planning on it.
Yes, not wearing a helmet is not the brightest thing to do. Neither is allowing government bureaucrats to make laws defining your personal choices. Time to let go of your ankles my friend and cover your a$$. Once you give up your right to make decisions about your person you never know what protuberance the government will try to shove in there.
Joined
·
15 Posts
Helmets do save lives and to ride without one is dumb.
But it is not for goverment to make these decisions for its people, it is a free persons choice.
When the governor of Texas vetoed concealed handgun legislation, we voted her out of office and put someone in who would. Time to cowboy up voters.
But it is not for goverment to make these decisions for its people, it is a free persons choice.
When the governor of Texas vetoed concealed handgun legislation, we voted her out of office and put someone in who would. Time to cowboy up voters.
I just love the "personal Freedom"folk.They think that any government intrusion is a great conspiracy.
Of course the social cost associated with head injury is not addressed by them.
They want all the freedom with NO personal and social responability.
Their riding philosophy is like the eating habits of an infant child.They have a HUGE appetite at one end and no control at the other.
Of course the social cost associated with head injury is not addressed by them.
They want all the freedom with NO personal and social responability.
Their riding philosophy is like the eating habits of an infant child.They have a HUGE appetite at one end and no control at the other.
I believe that if MO posts one more article about helmets laws, anyone who requests it should be able to get a prorated refund of their subscription, which should cover at least a couple of beers. Oh, forget that - then we will have another article about riding and alcohol.
How come there are no articles about riding under the influence of your mother-in-law? Talk about losing concentration.
How come there are no articles about riding under the influence of your mother-in-law? Talk about losing concentration.
Re:
Socialism is an economic system based on cooperation rather than competition. Most modern economies are a some mix along the spectrum of pure capitalism and pure socialism.
Governments and societal collectives have a legitimate interest in protecting the citizenry;and this often clashes with more libertarian ideas of individual freedom. All I know is that some laws make more sense than others from a libertarian point of view.
Society has made a significant investment in you, your education, your health, and welfare. Your family has made significant investments in your health, safety, and welfare.
I don't have an answer to this other than on balance, wearing a helmet saves lives, and reduces the economic costs of injuries.
For anyone who cries about socialism. you should pay for yor health benefits, education, and retirement, all out of your own pocket. That would be a really help you make your point about socialism. Otherwise, you should argue for libertarianism.
Socialism is an economic system based on cooperation rather than competition. Most modern economies are a some mix along the spectrum of pure capitalism and pure socialism.
Governments and societal collectives have a legitimate interest in protecting the citizenry;and this often clashes with more libertarian ideas of individual freedom. All I know is that some laws make more sense than others from a libertarian point of view.
Society has made a significant investment in you, your education, your health, and welfare. Your family has made significant investments in your health, safety, and welfare.
I don't have an answer to this other than on balance, wearing a helmet saves lives, and reduces the economic costs of injuries.
For anyone who cries about socialism. you should pay for yor health benefits, education, and retirement, all out of your own pocket. That would be a really help you make your point about socialism. Otherwise, you should argue for libertarianism.
Let's try to look good, folks. . .
One of the things that has appealed to me about MO versus lots of other internet motorcycling destinations is that the folks here (yes, all of you) seem to be smarter than most. One of the things I like about smart people is that they tend to consider the nuances of issues and people, as well as the multiple sides of any issue. I've often had to concede that there are individuals who, although they propose ideas completely antithetical to my own, are just as smart as me if not more so. We differ in our experiences and our current environments. What we have here is a difference in philosophy. It would certainly make this board look a whole lot more intelligent if we could lay off the insults and "people who endorse x law are sheep" kind of statements. Intelligent people can differ in opinion, as radical as that idea may seem. Personally, I endorse helmet laws because a) I do not consider it a personal choice when the public ends up paying, b) there is no "right" regarding operation of a motor vehicle on public lands, and c) there is not a slippery slope on these things. So many people keep screaming that we will become a totalitarian state every time we introduce legislation. I do wish this kind of ridiculous fear-mongering would stop. Talking about logical, forseeable consequences of legislation is perfectly reasonable to do--in fact, quite patriotic. But to say, "if you vote for helmet laws, next they will do x, y, and z" is extreme and reeks of fortune-telling. I am sure that when the issue of automobile registration and operator licensing came up, a bunch of folks stood up and spoke of commies and Nazis. It certainly didn't seem to lead to that, and I don't think helmet laws have led to that kind of totalitarianism, either. Similarly, abortion has not led to the "moral decline" of states that allow it, at least by anti-abortion groups' views, for example. I raise a beer to more intelligent debate. . .
One of the things that has appealed to me about MO versus lots of other internet motorcycling destinations is that the folks here (yes, all of you) seem to be smarter than most. One of the things I like about smart people is that they tend to consider the nuances of issues and people, as well as the multiple sides of any issue. I've often had to concede that there are individuals who, although they propose ideas completely antithetical to my own, are just as smart as me if not more so. We differ in our experiences and our current environments. What we have here is a difference in philosophy. It would certainly make this board look a whole lot more intelligent if we could lay off the insults and "people who endorse x law are sheep" kind of statements. Intelligent people can differ in opinion, as radical as that idea may seem. Personally, I endorse helmet laws because a) I do not consider it a personal choice when the public ends up paying, b) there is no "right" regarding operation of a motor vehicle on public lands, and c) there is not a slippery slope on these things. So many people keep screaming that we will become a totalitarian state every time we introduce legislation. I do wish this kind of ridiculous fear-mongering would stop. Talking about logical, forseeable consequences of legislation is perfectly reasonable to do--in fact, quite patriotic. But to say, "if you vote for helmet laws, next they will do x, y, and z" is extreme and reeks of fortune-telling. I am sure that when the issue of automobile registration and operator licensing came up, a bunch of folks stood up and spoke of commies and Nazis. It certainly didn't seem to lead to that, and I don't think helmet laws have led to that kind of totalitarianism, either. Similarly, abortion has not led to the "moral decline" of states that allow it, at least by anti-abortion groups' views, for example. I raise a beer to more intelligent debate. . .
Re:
Thank you for the lesson in political science.
"Governments and societal collectives have a legitimate interest in protecting the citizenry"
No, the collectively confused have the misguided notion that the government has a legitimate interested in protecting the citizenry. Like sheep they follow the herder, ignoring the ones being slaughtered and naively thinking the same fate does not await them.
BTW I normally wear a helmet for safety reasons, and cannot even remember when last I rode without.
"I don't have an answer to this other than on balance, wearing a helmet saves lives, and reduces the economic costs of injuries."
I will not argue your point other than to say that this argument is as apt at motivating the enforcing helmet laws, as it is for total banning of motorcycles. It is a well know fact that motorcycling is infinitely more dangerous than any other form of transport. One would be highly delusional to say otherwise.
BTW, I see you continually misspell downer.
Thank you for the lesson in political science.
"Governments and societal collectives have a legitimate interest in protecting the citizenry"
No, the collectively confused have the misguided notion that the government has a legitimate interested in protecting the citizenry. Like sheep they follow the herder, ignoring the ones being slaughtered and naively thinking the same fate does not await them.
BTW I normally wear a helmet for safety reasons, and cannot even remember when last I rode without.
"I don't have an answer to this other than on balance, wearing a helmet saves lives, and reduces the economic costs of injuries."
I will not argue your point other than to say that this argument is as apt at motivating the enforcing helmet laws, as it is for total banning of motorcycles. It is a well know fact that motorcycling is infinitely more dangerous than any other form of transport. One would be highly delusional to say otherwise.
BTW, I see you continually misspell downer.
Seruzawa, hearing you call them looters just made my day. There is some sanity in this world. Nobody has a "responsibility" to society. Don't hurt other people. The rest is up to you. If I want to shoot myself in the face, or ride without a helmet, it's MY choice.
And for the record, I've never ridden without a helmet (nor shot myself in the face), because of a responsibility that I CHOOSE to accept to myself and my loved ones, NOT to the socialist looters.
And for the record, I've never ridden without a helmet (nor shot myself in the face), because of a responsibility that I CHOOSE to accept to myself and my loved ones, NOT to the socialist looters.
helmet laws, etc.
I am against helmet laws as a general philosophy, but I would never ride without the best quality full coverage helmet that I can find. I also like body armor - you need all the help you can get thanks to semi-conscious car drivers that should not have a driver's license.
I am against helmet laws as a general philosophy, but I would never ride without the best quality full coverage helmet that I can find. I also like body armor - you need all the help you can get thanks to semi-conscious car drivers that should not have a driver's license.
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Re:
Well, actually the people who work are already paying for all those things. Wealth doesn't grow on trees. And the govt creates nothing. It just steals from those who work to give to those who won't. No amount of excuses will change the fact that looters simply want free stuff on the backs of the people who actually produce valuable goods and services. That's what govt mandated socialism really is. No amount of justification makes greed and theft noble.
Well, actually the people who work are already paying for all those things. Wealth doesn't grow on trees. And the govt creates nothing. It just steals from those who work to give to those who won't. No amount of excuses will change the fact that looters simply want free stuff on the backs of the people who actually produce valuable goods and services. That's what govt mandated socialism really is. No amount of justification makes greed and theft noble.
Re: Let's try to look good, folks. . .
hey who you calling smart.. you must be canadian ....anyway helmets save lives but I believe by FORCING people to wear them we may be saving the wrong lives and further polluting the gene pool. If they would just let us SMART guys wear the helmets is would be fine with me
hey who you calling smart.. you must be canadian ....anyway helmets save lives but I believe by FORCING people to wear them we may be saving the wrong lives and further polluting the gene pool. If they would just let us SMART guys wear the helmets is would be fine with me
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
