Total Motorcycle Community Forums

paul246 wrote:SV- my apologies are in order if, as it seems, I misunderstood your original message. So, I am sorry for that.

My issue is of course, the mandated helmet issue. As far as the Sikh that was featured by the original poster, I have no issue with them or any other group for that matter.

So I will stick to my beliefs (full protective gear, all the time) and leave it at that.

BTW, I recall reading your India blog some time back and still have a shortcut to it pasted on my desktop. Great story, thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Next time I'm over your way ( I was in London for a week and the Yorkshire Dales for 2 weeks this past summer) I'll share a Theakstons with you.

Cheers paul, you'd be welcome to call in any time. Unfortunately it's not easy to get Theakstons in my part of the world but there are some other good brews.

And ooops you'e caught me out in my habit of overediting my posts (I'm a very careless writer, but a demanding reader - it makes for a very uneasy life. ) So our posts are now interestingly out of synch - a bit like our communication was earlier.

Take care

Richard

Kal wrote:

sv-wolf wrote:OK, every five years I get to put a cross on a bit of paper to choose between two political parties whose main public activity is to squabble about how best to further the interests of the rich and screw everyone else. That's a choice? That's democracy? - 'rule by the people'?

So as far as I am concerned it is just a matter of what you can get out of a political and commercial establishment who have their own agenda.

Don't you work for local Government?

Missed your post, first time round Kal!

Well, yes, of course. You know I do!

As there is no way to state my views on this without sounding pompous and embarrassing, I'll just say that life is full of paradoxes, and being taken for a ride by one employer is as good as being taken for a ride by another.


Hey! you never know I might end up as PM and decide to commit troops to the invasion of Iran. I suspect a wide capacity for self-deception and double-think is a requirement of all senior politicians.

A neighbor of mine forgot to chin-strap his helmet and got up to 140mph. The wind sucked it right off his head. Guess he should have worn a turban He didn't get hurt, BTW.

--Dave

safety-boy wrote:A neighbor of mine forgot to chin-strap his helmet and got up to 140mph. The wind sucked it right off his head. Guess he should have worn a turban He didn't get hurt, BTW.

--Dave

You sure that weren't kph?

D'oh!!!!!

Wrong topic!!!!

Brackstone wrote:I'm going to make a relegion that has a rule that it's against my relegion to pay taxes.

This has been done, it's called Scientology... tax exempt. and it's considered a dangerous cult in several countries, and is banned! But America seems to honor their fabricated tax exemption needs!

UPDATE: the court case has gone against the Sikh biker, because:
1. he is less safe without his helmet
2. his family is less secure with him without a helmet
3. other road users are less secure without him wearing a helmet.


i think i gisted that right. you can read this and tell me what i got wrong...

I read the decision. Basically, the judge is saying that it is his duty to determine what risks are appropriate for the biker and his family. It's obvious that the judge is not a motorcyclist, so one would wonder if he is better equipped to bottoms the risk than the Sikh biker.

Comments about how the lack of a helmet endangered others on the road, left me stumped.

The increased cost to the healthcare system was truly a red herring. If he expects brain injured Sikh riders to cause a measurable difference in healthcare costs, he's living in a dreamworld. If the courts and legislators are sincere about outlawing things based on healthcare impacts, why don't they ban things that actually affect the costs (like most of the crap that future diabetic and cardiac patients ingest on a daily basis).

As I read the decision, all I got out of it was a picture of a pompous judge condescendingly trying to justify that his assesment of acceptable risk is superior to that of the lowly citizen.

My favorite quote :

Judge Blacklock said the prospect of severe brain injury if the exempt were allowed is not speculative.

"We are talking about the certainty of brain injury, some of them severe."

Given the opportunity, I'd bet this guy would ban motorcycles altogether. After all, even with all of the helmeted riders on the road, there is still a certainty of brain injury, even death! Oh my!

I think its the right decision.

All though i dont agree with all the comments made, at the end of the day, the system has left it for one person (Judge) to be responsible for another person (biker), and if I was put in the same position, I would take what ever stance that ensured me the most coverage if taken to task a later stage (ie. the guy crashes and severly head injures himself post me telling him it was ok to ride helmetless).


You make a rule like compulsory helmets, you make for it everyone.

Well I say if you want to wear a helmet do it, if you don't don't, when it comes to family or extremely close friends though I do not force them to wear one, I do ask them to. But at the end of the day it is their decission not mine or the goverments.

Pj

I would have said, "Sure, go without a helmet. But in order to safegaurd our healthcare system, you forfit any government paid benefits for any injuries resulting from a M/C crash."

Now the biker gets what he wants, and the public outcry about healthcare costs are all set to rest. A far as I'm concerned all bikers can take that risk, and see how their families feel when it's time to pony up the med bills because they didn't want to wear a helmet...