Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:42 pm
I feel both of these posts take an extreme example and then boil down very complicated issues to quick bullet points. As a fourm, we've covered several of these debates in the soapbox, and I'm always willing to visit them again. However, with that said I think we're getting way off base.Mikeydude wrote:Well -- it's okay for the illegal immigrants to go to school, go to hospitals, get medicaid, get welfare, ride in those same ambulances, get jobs and not pay taxes at all... Why have a problem with an American that does pay taxes? He's earned the right to it...CNF2002 wrote:
It really wouldnt bother me if it wasnt that the EMS personnel are paid by taxpayers to scrape you off the road. Does insurance cover the costs to the city to clean up the dead? I doubt it. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you ride a bike without gear, you shouldn't expect to survive an accident at any great deal of speed, and its selfish to expect society to pay for your choices. Hey, thats what welfare is for right?
Full face provides more protection. For some people it obstructs the periphial vision. A half face provides less protection, and does not obstruct the periphial vision. With that said a half face helmet is considered legal in states that have a helmet law.
Motorcycling is all about reducing the risk to an acceptable level, and for some a half helmet does exactly that. To bring issues with tax dollars, EMTS, and government costs and use that as an arugment without any fiscal information is just absurd. I'm sure the fiscal cost of motorcycle accident cleanups is DWARFED by the state cost to uninsured drivers. Still that's not what this postings all about. Sorry to get ranty, but I really hate it when very complicated issues get boiled down into absurd arguments.