no helmets for michigan. what do you think?

blinks frantically and crawls into the corner behind the couch:behindsofa:

 

i can see this being an issue at higher speeds. the same as wind in your eyes or a bug is only an issue at higher speeds. I would not have a problem if helmets were required above certain speeds. ill still wear them at lower speeds tho

 

You could say the exact same thing about driving a car. I took the risk of driving a car. my wifes sister ran into a tree in the middle of winter because she hit a sheet of ice. she nearly lost her life. her insurance did and should pay for her injuries, we dont buy insurance becuase we plan on getting hurt. we buy insurance (which comes with auto policies) IF we get hurt. and to say our insurance shouldn't cover what inevitably is an accident, would null any reason for having insurance.

 

what speeds were you going?

 

I think we are aboot to jump the rails. :fear:

 

I wonder if some of the older guys who ride VFRs ever got smacked with a pterodactyl.

 

no, it is not. It should be my decision to wear a lid or not.

55-65, both times.

 

If you don't understand that laws in this Country are in fact based on (logically fallacious) slippery slope argumentation, then you don't understand how our society works.

There is only ONE reason for a law to exist. Constitutional relevance. Too many people don't get that. They see something they don't like and scream "there ought to be a law"! If a law does not PROTECT a freedom, we should not have it. Policies, procedures, rules and local ordinances can and should be created to help your society operate as you want it to, but you should NEVER create a law unless it has Constitutional basis.

You are supposed to learn to be a responsible adult. WE are not supposed to force you to be one through "feel good" legislation. If you choose to not wear a helmet and get all jacked up it is not just your right, but your RESPONSIBILITY to bear. If you disagree with me on that point, there is little to discuss. That is the starting point for me.

Jose

 

Well eminent domain and interstate commerce are governed by the US Constitution so any complaints you have with those provisions are with the higher courts that define their meaning.

Moving on, you say 50 years ago such government meddling wouldn’t be tolerated? Really?
Guess you forgot that the Government regulated the price and route of every airplane, train, truck and merchant ship in the US. The government regulated the price of natural gas. The government regulated interest on every checking account and stock commissions. 50 years ago you didn’t own your phone. That old dial up phone was “rented” by our parents and more likely grandparents from that giant telecommunications company that was government controlled. You were subject to the draft as a young man…no choice. And if you actually owned a gold bar your ass could be in deep shitte! Totally illegal.

Oh, and let’s not forget if your ass was black and you lived, God forbid, below the Mason-Dixon line the wonderful Jim Crow laws you would be under.

So 50 years ago that form of government intervention was acceptable and reasonable. Thus your thesis is wrong and thank God many of those archaic rules have been removed and we’ve moved on as a society allowing individuals and business to move forward.

Not all government intervention is good and not all of it is bad. Examples: Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting and breaking up Standard Oil and the enactment of the US and States wage and hour laws for employee protections. These are two examples of Government intervention that made sense and yes, those laws told Captains of Industry what they need to do and when they need to do it. So what upsets me in these discussions is exactly your last statements of:

1. I still ask, if it's ok for the government to tell people they must wear a helmet, the why stop there and not force everyone to wear a full track suit in the name of their own safety?

Such a question is illogical, hyperbolic and bullshit. You ask “Why stop there”? Exactly! If there was such a push against motorcycles then we wouldn’t be debating the legislation to wear a helmet, we would be organizing campaigns against the legislators who want to ban our beloved machines! Well, at least I hope we would (and yes I am aware such dumbass laws have been discussed, by a small minority of morons i.e. elected officials).

At no point in ANY introduction of a State helmet law is there verbiage “Ban Motorcycles”. Kind of goes against the whole reason to pass a helmet law, eh? And for all the years each State did pass helmet laws in the 60’and 70’s at no time did the dreaded motorcycle police keep going and BAN motorcycles. All that happened was you had to by law, wear a helmet. Yet, now that the ABATE homos are repealing the State helmet laws this all gets drummed back up. They are taking our rights! They are taking our bikes! They are taking our women! Reminds me of the great fear Conservative party members hold over the working class with “If gay marriage is allowed…you sons will turn gay” “If abortion is legal…it will be forced on your daughters”. No better examples of hyperbolic BS that really diverts the issue yet keeps your voting bloc loyal to you.

Only one person went to answer why seat belt laws were passed. Insurance industry did have an effect on the passing of seat belt laws. But I’ll break the suspense and let you in on the piece of history that we forget as most of us were not alive or had a job that exposed us to the realities of pre-seat belt requirements. The simple answer: The human tragedy.

You see, pain and suffering are often erased by time. I implore any of you who know an old retired highway patrol officer what the highways were like when they worked them in 50’s to early 80’s and the downright horrific accidents they dealt with and I have had more than one laugh and say “Oh, the same arguments were made. If the government makes us wear seatbelts for safety they’ll eventually ban cars and make us ride trains and buses!” Well we can all see those were failed predictions as our cars and trucks roll on LOL!

Seriously though, and old PA State Trooper I knew and another NY Trooper who was a teacher of mine in college and a Chautauqua County Sheriff I was friends with (along with some others) laid out the history and they remember politicians coming to them and asking them their opinions on seatbelts. All independently said “I pull more people out alive than dead when wearing them”. In short, the hyperbolic arguments about “freedumb” were lost and seatbelts became law. Funny thing…after 25-30 years of seatbelt laws very few people talk about the ‘guvmint’ telling them what to do and the few that do say “Well yeah I still wear one because it’s better to wear it”. Only in America LOL! We fight something that is common sense.

Oh, before I get off the soapbox. Do you know why guns have safeties? Some of you are going to think: “They all have safeties”!? What is Bubba talking about?” Well back in the day and if you were ever into collecting older firearms the safety was ‘don’t point the gun at anything you don’t want to shoot’ But through liability and the 1968 Gun Control Act safeties became mandatory in the format we know. Psst! Psst! Before that the same hyperbolic “If they put safeties on guns then what stopping them from just banning them” was a common argument. Nothing like finding a old pile of American Rifleman’s from 1953 to 1961. The 1968 gun control act came and went and LOOK! WE CAN STILL OWN GUNS!!! All these failed predictions are starting to add up!

BZ

 

You say that until your child and/ or children eat it.

Perspective my friend, look it up.

BZ

 

Are you bringing up Constitutional Relevance from a right, middle or left point of view? Because for me, without those, there is little to discuss.

BZ

 

^^ You don't want 'Freedom', you just want to live without any laws. Be honest about it.

 

By the way Tink. The line:

"The tools at hand prevent me from putting as much detail or specifics into the response as I would like."

MADE ME LAUGH! If you dont mind I am going to "lift" that from your for personal use.

BZ

 

Ya know Rainbow. You bring something up about people who come off as being Libertarians I think are closet Anarchists. But they haven't read the memo.

BZ

 

You can include CT & RI too. Both have limited helmet laws, under 18 & under 20 yrs old. Something like that anyway.

 

"Fucking Dumbass" doesn't really apply to this thread. Well it didn't until you brought up the name birddseed. Then its use was quite approprite when it comes to all matters birdseed related. .

Have a safe flight. Business trip I assume?

BZ

 

I think that where this discussion really lies, is not in what we agree and disagree about in the whole, but i think the real discussion is this..... where do we draw the line. The point i get most from your statement is that, while they could use the same argument to make a law, they are not going to outlaw things only up to a certain point. In the case of helmets, different areas draw that line differently, some at helmets. some at goggles. I think that the other side of the argument "taking away our freedom" stems from another line, which would be no requirements on helmets.

not that i disagree with you, or the other side for that matter, but i would like to make a couple points, simply for discussion sake. I am enjoying the discussion. i guess i kinda miss you guys.

In NYC a man was recently arested for spitting on the ground (within the last 2 years). reason. it is illegal in NYC to spit in front of a woman or child.

up untill 2010 guns were illegal in Chicago. and even now im pretty much every state there are "no cary zones" inwhich it is illegal to have a firearm. both of these laws go directly against the constitution.

oh, and just an fyi. gunz being allowed in chicago had 0 effect on crime. it went down 5 percent as was the trend for hte previous couple years.

 

hey!?!?!?!?!?