Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
"...the hospital lost about $1 million over six years on motorcyclists who are injured while not wearing helmets and can't pay their medical bills."



How is this different than a belt-less driver not paying their post-crash medical bills? I've not heard of any laws pertaining to that! And what difference does it make what they were wearing? If they don't have health insurance they still cost everyone money. Seems like they can't see the forest through the trees.



"...require that all motorcyclists, helmeted or not, carry at least $10,000 in health insurance."



I was feeling good about this news until the last sentence. Health insurance is a good thing to have, but the Govt. stipulating who must have it and how much is they need is ridiculous (and un-constitutional). Unfortunately, today's health insurance rates are beyond the reach of many americans.



I hope Bledsoe's new version of this bill is defeated as soundly as the last.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
When you posted this I was composing my own; they are very similar. I don't want to be accused of copying! (like some Japanese bike makers, huh KPC)



Even when lawmakers DO pass bills that effect them, they have the money to easily pay the increased costs, while their constituents may not. (Oh yeah, and sometimes they get out of paying them anyway)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
We've discussed this topic in recent threads at great length. As I stated there, as long as there is a tether to the headrest (as in all race-cars), helmets in cars WOULD save many lives. Also, modern airbags virtually replace the need for a tether.



Longride's assertion is correct. The brain is the most delicate organ in the body, and is most effected by the 'sudden deceleration' of a crash. Most damage is done as the brain smashes against the inside of the skull on impact.

The vast majority of car-crash fatalities are from *belt-less* drivers smashing the head against something (not neck or spinal injuries). Hence the importance of wearing a seatbelt and the usefulness of airbags.





I disagree with seat belt or helmet laws for adults, even though I choose to always wear both. Every adult makes decisions effecting their own safety thousands of times a day. Belts and helmets should be no exception. As long as their decision does not greatly effect another's safety it is their choice they make. Note I said safety, not insurance rates or taxes, ect.



As many have only recenctly come to realize, freedom isn't free. Many others still have not, and never will. This is but one cost (and a comparatively small one) that we must pay in order to retain the freedom we so cherish!





*An important note: Even while paying certain costs for freedoms, we have the highest stadard of living in the world. In fact it is >because< we bear these costs that it is so. The costs associated with a 'nanny state' are far greater. History has born this out time and again.

Let us remember this the next time someone proposes a law that curtails the freedoms of one group for another's (perceived) benefit. When societal 'gains' are bought using FREEDOM as currency everyone loses, and THAT cost is more than I am willing to pay!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
There are myriad reasons why smoking on airplanes is dangerous and dumb.



Because the air in pressurized aircraft is heavily recycled, anyone greatly sensitive to smoke is in BIG trouble. These people (and everyone else) are unable to 'escape' to cleaner air. Never mind the annoyance it poses to non-smokers.



The ****pit (and pilots) shares that same air. The effects on one or both pilots who are highly sensitive creates extreme and unnecessary flight risks.



Smoke is VERY bad for flight instruments, which cost a fortune.



It would set off smoke detectors which are now is use.



It is also a fire hazard.



I'm a commercial pilot, and it astounds me that smoking was EVER allowed on aircraft. (It's a throwback to the 20s when commercial air travel first started. >Planes weren't pressurized< and the majority of people smoked).



I wouldn't be surprised to learn that lighters and matches are illegal carryon items per FAA regs.



In other environments I don't have a problem with smoking, especially when separate spaces/good ventilation is provided.



***People should be free to make choices that effect their own safety, provided they aren't endangering others in the process.***



I do enjoy a good cigar or pipe occasionally :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
I said I'm a commercial pilot, not an APT (airline transport pilot), there's a huge difference. Under the regs *I* operate under lighters/matches are fine. There are MANY things a pilot must know, but screening isn't there job.



I could check the FARs (federal aviation regulations) and see if anything is written about lighters, but many operational decisions are made by individual airlines. I’m not curious enough to search for it. I can assure you that most ATPs would have to look it up too. Heck, they even have HUGE books in the ****pit to LOOK UP emergency procedure responses! We're not machines with perfect databanks.



As with everything, there's a big difference between what is technically legal and what's actually enforced. It wouldn't surprise me if they were legal, as I've never heard of lighters being confiscated at metal detectors.





"It's also funny that you don't understand how the air supply system works on a commercial jet... half the air in the jet at any given time is newly introduced fresh air, pressurized by the engines and filtered before it is delivered to the cabin. In addition, the recirculated air is filtered at such a level that all smoke particles are removed..."





This is only true for the newest planes, and represents a tiny fraction of all jetliners. While I don't pretend to know everything, I certainly understand how aircraft pressurization works! This new system is designed to filter microscopic airborne contagins and such, and would quickly clog with smoke, it also saps much more engine power.While composing my post I originally wrote: 'In all but the newest jets smoking would...' but changed it because I thought it unimportant.



Sorry to confuse you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
"...but they didn't stop at airplanes did they?"



You're absolutely right. The govt. sees most things this way. Is something's good in one case, lots more would be great in all cases!



Unfortunately, common sense isn't so common these days.
 
1 - 7 of 7 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