Total Motorcycle Community Forums

DieMonkeys wrote:Oh, just poking at yah for fun. I agree with the fact that it's your dicision to wear a helmet or not and that you accept the consequences, just like you accept that by not wearing protection you may get a disease or father a child, or that by eating nothing but McDonald's eventually your heart will turn into a slab of butter, etc.

As long as we're on the same page.

ZooTech wrote:

earwig wrote:It's sad that laws have to be made to protect us from ourselves.

They don't, and shouldn't, that's the point. Laws for protecting minors, yes. Laws for people eligible to go to war, no.

ZooTech... if helmets and seatbelts save lives, which I think you would agree they do, and tons of people choose not to wear them... then passing a law and forcing you to wear them forces you to increase the chance that you won't die in an accident... so as you can see that law is made to protect someone from themselves. And as I said to Meanie... driving is NOT a right, it's a PRIVILEGE, and its given to you by the state.

ZooTech wrote:

DieMonkeys wrote:Oh, just poking at yah for fun. I agree with the fact that it's your dicision to wear a helmet or not and that you accept the consequences, just like you accept that by not wearing protection you may get a disease or father a child, or that by eating nothing but McDonald's eventually your heart will turn into a slab of butter, etc.

As long as we're on the same page.

I don't think it's smart not to wear a helmet, especially if you're riding around all squiddly, and I especially don't agree with the whole no shoes, no shirt, no brain thing the squids down here have going on. But alas, it's your decision and I'm not going to stop you or try to pass a law, so long as you're hurting only yourself and not others.

earwig wrote:ZooTech... if helmets and seatbelts save lives, which I think you would agree they do, and tons of people choose not to wear them... then passing a law and forcing you to wear them forces you to increase the chance that you won't die in an accident... so as you can see that law is made to protect someone from themselves.

Banning motorcycles would accomplish the same thing. Later on, the development of computerized cars that do the driving for you will further your dream of an uber-safe society. Before you know it, the world in the movie "Equilibrium" will really exist. Enjoy.

earwig wrote:And as I said to Meanie... driving is NOT a right, it's a PRIVILEGE, and its given to you by the state.

Excuse the hell out of me, wiggy, but I AM the state. Our government is of the people, by the people, remember? The state gives me nothing that I haven't elected it the authority to do. And I, for one, am arguing for the rights of motorcyclists. I'm not an idiot, I know helmets reduce injury risks, but the more freedom you hand over to a governing body the more they will take. So, after a federal helmet law is passed, what next? What riding freedom that you take for granted will be next on the chopping block? Don't cry when it happens, wiggy, because after all, it will all be under the guise of "personal safety". Big Brother knows best, right?

Zootech, driving was a privledge long before you were born, you did not elect anyone that decided this. Didn't you learn this when you got your drivers license? Wearing a seatbelt or helmet is resonable, taking away a motorcycle or making your car drive for you is not... that is why those laws would never fly or go through. May I ask how you feel about drug laws while we are on the topic of personal freedoms? I threw this out there before regarding sex with minors etc. too... why should the government decide who is a minor and who is old enough to sleep with who? You let them say 18 is legal whats next! You won't be able to sleep with your wife!

I absolutely, have no problem with helmet laws. With that said, if the majority want them repealed, go for it. But if that happens, I think you'll see more insurance companies going the, "No Gear, No Coverage" route. If you want to put your life at risk, don't put my premiums there as well. It's the cost of hospitalization and recovery that helps to put insurance costs through the roof.

Ok ZooTech and Meanie... This person was not wearing a seatbelt... You wanted proof that not wearing a seatbelt can affect others and not just the person refusing to wear the belt?

Go watch this video and tell me the person who had this idiot fly in front of their car was not affected having to run someone over. This took me 10 seconds to find... something tells me I can find many more.

http://www.motorwatch.com/audio_video/video/main.htm

Andrew13 wrote:[
Heh. To refute your refutation these problems don't compete for resources. Passing a helmet law in no way stops AIDS research or prevents the state from passing a drunk driving law.

I didn't say they competed. I said regulations that are "for the good of society" should be applied where there is cost is greatest to society. Also, drunk driving laws don't really fall into this category. They are primarily aimed to keep one from injuring others.

Incidently, every single example you provide is in fact regulated in this country. The food you eat is regulated, that's what the FDA is for. Plenty of states and localities regulate alcohol, from dry sundays to 3.2 beer to mandatory bar closing times. And permissible sex acts are regulated in (off the top of my head) Texas, and the military.

Your personal risk choices are not regulated by the FDA. The good of society is not served by people eating junk that is mostly devoid of nutritional content and will lead to heart disease and diabetes. If you're truly going for the "good of society" regulation, the junk that leads to the true burden on society, should be outlawed. You should instead be required to eat your vegetables everday, or face the music. There is no question that enforced proper nutrition would benefit society more than any other law.

Local and state laws vary on alcohol, but there aren't many that prevent you from overendulging, pretty much whenever you want to. The cost to society is still quite high in this area. Shouldn't that be a priority?

As for sexual practices, the logical parallel rules to motorcycling would be to make it illegal to have unprotected sexual contact. That would go to the core of easing the burden on society brought on by AIDs.

My point was regulation of someone's personal risk assesment.

In general I'm against regulations, including some of the ones I cite, but Helmet laws are tricky. Squids will (generally) grow up to be decent people, given the chance. We were all stupid kids once. I'm for seatbelt laws too, even though my mother is alive right now because she wasn't wearing one in one accident. (She got tossed into the passenger seat then the moter went through the drivers seat.) Why? Becuase one freak accident does not change the fact that in 99% of all accidents you're better off wearing one

Assuming that you are talking about adult squids, when they are of legal age to be responsible for their own decisions, why should the government step in? Either they are adults or they're not. I'm all for helmet laws for minors.

I haven't said that you're not better off wearing a helmet or a seatbelt. They're good things. My objection is to a government entity making a law that removes my personal choice, because it is either for my own good, or for the good of society. As I've pointed out, there are a lot of laws they could enact that would do far more to accomplish those goals. Why motorcycles?

earwig wrote:Zootech, driving was a privledge long before you were born, you did not elect anyone that decided this. Didn't you learn this when you got your drivers license? Wearing a seatbelt or helmet is resonable, taking away a motorcycle or making your car drive for you is not... that is why those laws would never fly or go through. May I ask how you feel about drug laws while we are on the topic of personal freedoms? I threw this out there before regarding sex with minors etc. too... why should the government decide who is a minor and who is old enough to sleep with who? You let them say 18 is legal whats next! You won't be able to sleep with your wife!

Look, I ride around how I want to all the time. You have failed to explain to me how it effects you, so I can only come to one logical conclusion: you think your way is the way and you won't be happy until you have total conformity. If you want to legislate personal safety, I suggest you start with high-risk sports and things of that nature. Bungie-jumping, rock-climbing, drag-racing, NASCAR....all of it should be banned for the sake of the participants and their families. In addition, a whole host of laws regulating sexual relations is in order. After all, if you're not smart enough to be safe in the sack then Uncle Sam should step in.

Bottom line is, I'm 29-years old, I've only had sex with one person my entire life (my now ex-wife), I have never tried a recreational drug of any kind, have never smoked, and rarely drink (and usually very little). My one "vice", if you will, is running around on my motorcycle experiencing the world God created in a way like no other. Yet you say the government should step in and "save me from myself". Thanks, but no thanks, wiggy. You can pass all the laws you want to for those with no voice of their own, but I have a voice and the ability to think and decide for myself. I also have the assurance of knowing where I'll be when I die, and the faith to know that it will come when it's supposed to. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you'd simply mind your own damn business and worry about what you are wearing.

ZooTech wrote:Look, I ride around how I want to all the time. You have failed to explain to me how it effects you, so I can only come to one logical conclusion: you think your way is the way and you won't be happy until you have total conformity.

It affects me when you die because you didn't have on a helmet and motorcyclists are looked down upon even more. Did you watch the video I posted showing the person getting thrown from their car and having to force someone to run them over and live knowing they ran someone over?

ZooTech wrote:Bottom line is, I'm 29-years old, I've only had sex with one person my entire life (my now ex-wife),

Loser! hahaha. j/k.

ZooTech wrote:I have never tried a recreational drug of any kind, have never smoked, and rarely drink (and usually very little).

You didn't answer my question... should crack be legal since it's a personal choice and it only affects the person doing the drugs? Do you care about anyone besides yourself?