Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Dragonhawk wrote:I'm such a selfish bastrd.

I've skimmed over this whole topic and noticed some heated arguement going on. Did I read it? Did I pay attention? Did I bother to follow the details of the discussion?

No.

I just looked for someone to quote me and thought, "Man, no one quoted me and said anything about my initial response. Bummer."

x0054 wrote:95% participation due to fines if you do not vote. Simple, it works. Voting is a right, not voting is a right too. Oh, and I love how personal you get about this

blues2cruise wrote:

Brackstone wrote: I understand you're reasoning here but I just don't believe if there were less injuries that required hospitalization that our state would tax us less. But then again I guess I'm a "Government is out to rip us off" kind of guy.

They wouldn't be taxing us less....but the premiums we pay for health care will go up.


So your saying that by forcing people to start out on a 250cc bike you'll discourage all the people that would normally only buy a 1000cc cause it would be un-cool to have anything else. And also assuming that these people are better off not riding at all since they'd probably just do something stupid?
In a manner of speaking, yes. I don't know what the demographics are like where you live, but around here, big powerful sport bikes are very popular. The majority of the riders of those bikes are young men new to riding. In the last few years, there have been quite a few of those very riders who within days of getting their learner's permit and purchasing their new bike have been killed. They did not have the skills or the experience to handle a powerful sport bike. This is why a graduated system would be good. In that way...if the kids who only get a bike because they think it is cool might think twice if they have to start out on a small bike. If they truly have a desire to learn to ride, then they should have lessons and gain a decent skill set before moving up.
There is enough carnage on the roads without those yahoos adding to it.


Again I just don't agree that there we would be spending less money if xyz would happen. See above

It's like the Garden State Parkway here in Jersey. They put tolls up to pay for the road so we could have it. They said as soon as the road was done and pay for the tolls would go down. The tolls are still there and the roads been paid off for years now.
The road may have been paid off but the revenue from the tolls help to pay for maintenance. Similar to our Coquihalla Hwy. The tolls pay for the snow plows and road repair.

When you find a stream of revenue you don't let go and that's what taxes are.
As much as we don't like paying taxes, they are necessary. Do you think we get clean water to drink, street lighting, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, prisons for the criminals, parks, etc., for free? We all need to pay a share for them.
What we don't want to do is pay for a share of the upkeep for someone who negligently caused his own head injury. (NOTE....negligently)

ps.....would you expect any less from someone who is a driver trainer and professional driver? (Me)

Brackstone wrote:Where is the corporate responsibility to take care of the consumer?

Kal wrote:

Brackstone wrote:Where is the corporate responsibility to take care of the consumer?

There is none.

A corporation's responsibilities start and end with a responsibility to make a profit for it's shareholders.

Kal wrote:Mmm not seeing your point.

The more a persons treatment costs the more tax money is required to fund it, the more the tax payer is taxed.

There isn't a magic bucket that the health services are funded out of.

Kal wrote:Ooooooooooooooooh Mike...