Total Motorcycle Community Forums

earwig wrote: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

You just don't get it. The driver of the SUV not wearing a seatbelt had nothing to do with injurying another. As was stated and guessed, he had a heart attack, stroke or something else. The only difference is...with a seatbelt, he would not have been ejected from the SUV..but it would have still rolled over. The man passed out somehow...simple. He didn't have control of the SUV...seatbelt or no seatbelt. Please try again.

Zootech is doing a fine job and in control of the topic. I agree with him, therefore, I won't be chiming in as much on this one anymore. You either get it or you don't. Obviously, it's the latter for you.

BTW, Wearing seatbelt and helmets make perfect sense and I never indicated I didn't wear either. That's not the issue at hand. The issue is simply government control of our lives. Which, BTW, is an "open mind" and not a closed minded tunnel visioned individual who believes everyone should follow his lead because he fails to control his situation and fails to accept the fact we all differ.

As for my loved ones......I could die walking to the store, on the job, in my home, playing my sports and in/on my vehicles even with safety equipment. Life is a risk we take daily. My loved ones understand my mentality for living and when I die, I died doing the things I wanted to do in life. Afterall, that is what life is all about. They understand this because I find those people who accept my mentality and befriend them and love me for who I am as I love and accept them for who they are. This, my friend, is an open mind.

Meanie wrote:You just don't get it. The driver of the SUV not wearing a seatbelt had nothing to do with injurying another.

Umm... did you miss the whole point? Someone HAD TO RUN HIM OVER because he was not wearing a seatbelt... would running someone over be fun to you? How about if that person did have time to swerve... and went into another lane and crashed... since the person was ejected from his SUV he affected SOMEONE ELSE.

Meanie wrote:BTW, Wearing seatbelt and helmets make perfect sense and I never indicated I didn't wear either. That's not the issue at hand. The issue is simply government control of our lives.

Well... since many people don't wear seatbelts and tax payers have to pay for the damages when their insurance runs out it affects all of us. It also gives the rest of us a bad name when someone is killed because they didn't wear a helmet. This thread is a perfect example. If Ben Roethlisberger had been wearing a helmet his crash probably wouldn't have even made the news and had people questioning why bikes go so fast, why there is a need for helmet laws etc... his injuries were in his face and it would be a non-issue if he was forced to wear a helmet.

Meanie wrote:As for my loved ones......I could die walking to the store, on the job, in my home, playing my sports and in/on my vehicles even with safety equipment. Life is a risk we take daily. My loved ones understand my mentality for living and when I die, I died doing the things I wanted to do in life. Afterall, that is what life is all about. They understand this because I find those people who accept my mentality and befriend them and love me for who I am as I love and accept them for who they are. This, my friend, is an open mind.

I love when people say that... so lets not worry about decreasing the chances of killing ourselves since we can die at any time!

earwig wrote:It affects me when you die because you didn't have on a helmet and motorcyclists are looked down upon even more.

Cry me a river of ink and use it to draft the first bill...

earwig wrote: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?

Not yet, I'm still looking for the one where the guy drowns in a glass of milk. I love Google!

earwig wrote: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?

I think people have every right to screw up their own lives, yes. Problem with your example is, crackheads oftentimes turn to theft and violence to support their habits. I won't be robbing any liquor stores or beating up any old ladies for the pleasure of riding my bike without a storm-trooper outfit on.

earwig wrote:Do you care about anyone besides yourself?

Not really, no. I mean, I care about my kids, my immediate family, and my friends - but I don't care all that much for humanity, no. Bottom line is, (and this applies to the analysis of a potential "squid", too) if the behavior only stands to harm the person doing it, go for it! If the behavior stands to harm an unwilling participant or innocent bystander, then the law should step in and do something. And don't hand me any garbage about insurance premiums or else I'll snatch the cigarette and beer out of your hands and have you banned from every fast food restaurant and non organic grocery store in town.

ZooTech wrote:Cry me a river of ink and use it to draft the first bill...

Ok.. so you have no answer...

ZooTech wrote:Not yet, I'm still looking for the one where the guy drowns in a glass of milk. I love Google!

Ok... no answer again.

ZooTech wrote:I think people have every right to screw up their own lives, yes. Problem with your example is, crackheads oftentimes turn to theft and violence to support their habits. I won't be robbing any liquor stores or beating up any old ladies for the pleasure of riding my bike without a storm-trooper outfit on.

Missed the point again... people rob and beat up old ladies for no reason at all sometimes no? Why did Jeff Dahmer eat people?

ZooTech wrote:And don't hand me any garbage about insurance premiums or else I'll snatch the cigarette and beer out of your hands and have you banned from every fast food restaurant and non organic grocery store in town.

I don't smoke or drink at all I eat right... I am in perfect shape I guess this can go on all night... I fail to see your points and you fail to see mine. Oh well, I quit.

earwig wrote:

ZooTech wrote:Cry me a river of ink and use it to draft the first bill...

Ok.. so you have no answer...

Oh, sorry....gee...you're right. I wouldn't want anyone to look down on you, wiggy. My bad.

earwig wrote:

ZooTech wrote:Not yet, I'm still looking for the one where the guy drowns in a glass of milk. I love Google!

Ok... no answer again.

Congratulations, wiggy, you managed to utilize Google to find one effing video that you think illustrates your point. I'm sure shortly after running over the already dead guy, the person in the other car (did I say "person"? I meant "victim") committed suicide because of the grief. Life should be way funner and easier!!!

earwig wrote:

ZooTech wrote:I think people have every right to screw up their own lives, yes. Problem with your example is, crackheads oftentimes turn to theft and violence to support their habits. I won't be robbing any liquor stores or beating up any old ladies for the pleasure of riding my bike without a storm-trooper outfit on.

Missed the point again...

Missed what point? Fine, legalize crack. What the hell do I care? I have a gun with a laser sight, bring it on.

earwig wrote:

ZooTech wrote:And don't hand me any garbage about insurance premiums or else I'll snatch the cigarette and beer out of your hands and have you banned from every fast food restaurant and non organic grocery store in town.

I don't smoke or drink at all I eat right... I am in perfect shape I guess this can go on all night... I fail to see your points and you fail to see mine. Oh well, I quit.

Bottom line is, you're perfect in every way and you're just sharing your perfect opinion with the rest of us. I nominate you for president in '08.

ZooTech wrote:Another example of an argument that could be used to ban motorcycles all together.

Tread softly, people!

Wow, here in Canuckistan we have had helmet laws for years yet strangely we are still allowed to ride motorcycles......

But for how long? It wasn't but a couple months ago there was a news article of how the Canadian insurance company wants to ban sportsbikes over 400cc's.

"An insurance official in Quebec, Canada, has suggested that the provincial government ban sportbikes over 400cc,"

It start out small as just a whisper in an ear. Or noise from a insurance exec. But then the idea gains momentum with someone in government. Especially if insurance companies give representatives money. Or are part of the government.

You may not care because you don't ride a sportbike. Or you don't ride a large cc bike.

Hows that quote go?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

like alot of people say with the loud pipe issue... If we don't take care of the problem ourselves the government will do it for us.

Arguing amongst ourselves will get us nowhere, I just want to warn people to look out for any possible nut case bills being written up.

On a side tidbit the US is more of a republic in which we elect people to represent us such as senators and electoral college really decides the President elect.

Cheers

flynrider wrote:

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.

Well, when there is no competition for resources, it's possible to address the greatest of societies problems and lesser problems. The stopping point should be where society is willing to bear the cost in the name of liberty and freedom. Where do helmet laws lie on that spectrum? I don't know. I've never seen a report on the cost to society of repealing a helmet law, it should be fairly easy to compute, additional medical expenses from head injuries and lost productivity from additional deaths = cost of law. If that cost is paltry then society can bear it. If it is significant then pass a helmet law. I'm not certain where I stand on this issue because I have never seen that study.

I should note that this does not always apply. Some freedoms are critical, the press and gun ownership for example.

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.

Yeah, but think for a minute about the cost of enforcement. Are you going to pay for the veggie police? Are you willing to put up with a video camera from the Dept of Nutrition Enforcement in your dineing room? The cost in cash and loss of freedom would be far greater than the benefits provided. It fails the cost/benefit analysis.

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?

We tried prohibition once in this country, it took decades to undo the damage. Incidently the same reply also works for the Nutrition laws. Do you want to see twinkie serving speak easies popping up everywhere with mobsters smuggling cheese cakes down from canada?

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.

A society that outlawed unprotected sex would last exactly one generation.

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?

The goverment is an entity created as a social contract between all of us, because there were some powers and responsibilites that are best held in trust rather than individually. I would rather that we had courts of law instead of lynch mobs. I'm glad we jointly chip in to create an Army vastly more powerful that one I could create as an individual. I like riding on paved roads instead of rutted dirt cattle trails. Those roads we enjoy were built and paid for by the goverment in trust for all of us, it's only right that the rules governing the usage of those roads also be created by that goverment. You are, after all, perfectly free to build your own road, on your own land, and do whatever you want with it.

Personally I'm split on the helmet issue. I happen to like my brains, so I always wear one, so I am untouched by any such law. I have an instinctive revulsion, as most americans do, to any law 'for my own good', just as you do. OTOH I don't want to see my friends die. I don't want my insurance rates to go up. I don't want to keep having to tell people "Yeah I know X just got maimed/killed, but he wasn't wearing a helmet and I do."

This was a really good read. It had drama, it had action, it had comic relief. It was based on facts and fiction. It was a privlege to be involved in it as much as driving and riding (afforded by the state?). Oh wait.. my state also allows me the privlege of freedom of choice!

and this from sienfeld

There are many things we can point to as proof that the human being is not smart.
The helmet is my personal favorite.
The fact that we had to invent the helmet...
Why did we invent the helmet?
Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads.
We looked at the situation...
We chose not to avoid these activities
but to just make little plastic hats
so that we can continue our head cracking lifestyles.
The only thing dumber than the helmet, is the helmet law,
the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly
it's not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it's in.