They passed the "no helmet law"
- Thread starter YZMAN400
- Start date
- Oct 28, 2001
- 4,704
- 0
No... And not that there's anything wrong with that! Some of my best friends are hippies...BadgerMan said:
Not to get off tangent (too late), but do you think if cigarettes were invented today, the government would allow them to be legal? Not a chance in hell! (unless they considered the potential tax revenue)
As far as pot compared to alcohol, what are the specific characteristics that justify one as illegal and the other legal? I don't have the stats to back this up, but which set of those drugs do you think has killed more people and ruined more lives? Keep in mind that I'm not against any of them, it's just that the hypocrisy is absurd...
It comes down to personal choice - simple as that. If the law states a fact you go with that, or choose if applicable. Everybody has an opinion. Freedom of being able to voice it is pretty nice, eh? I listen to everyones ideas. I'll do what I want (within the law). You could go on and on about what's right. With the new neck brace now available maybe everyone should be required to wear them at all MX tracks (SX, enduro, hare, etc.). It's something new so most will poo poo that idea (but not helmets).
BadgerMan
Mi. Trail Riders
- Jan 1, 2001
- 2,479
- 10
I have heard that Fred T. has plans for that constituency. ;)
Yes….for the very reason that you have stated. Revenue generation most likely has much to do with why they are considering a relaxation of the helmet law too. Always remember to follow the money trail…………….
I am one of those that believe that alcohol CAN BE consumed without any ill-effects and MAYBE (depending on who you ask) can result in some beneficial effects. Sadly, it is widely abused. Ganja, on the other hand, has no purpose other than for producing a high or possibly for medical applications. I have also read that it does more harm to your lungs than cigarette smoking.
That is my simple-minded differentiation.
Here is my take on the situation for what its worth.
I believe people should be allowed to make the choice to wear a helmet or not. Having said that, I think you are stupid not to wear one.
Like most people have said its a matter of freedom. In my opinion it is not the governments job to protect me from myself. After helmet laws what will the government go after next? trans fats? fast food? motocross? Where will it end?
I believe people should be allowed to make the choice to wear a helmet or not. Having said that, I think you are stupid not to wear one.
Like most people have said its a matter of freedom. In my opinion it is not the governments job to protect me from myself. After helmet laws what will the government go after next? trans fats? fast food? motocross? Where will it end?
- Dec 3, 2004
- 322
- 0
Choices? Facts? Opinions? I believe the reality of the situation(s) is this:
The creation of problems is good for business.
Someone is making money off every one of the issues discussed. Insurance companies, the governement through taxation-regulation-enforcement, medical professionals, equipment manufacturers,... etc...
When there are polarized opposed view points ---- there is money to be made!!!
The creation of problems is good for business.
Someone is making money off every one of the issues discussed. Insurance companies, the governement through taxation-regulation-enforcement, medical professionals, equipment manufacturers,... etc...
When there are polarized opposed view points ---- there is money to be made!!!
Wolverine423
~SPONSOR~
- Oct 2, 2005
- 2,498
- 0
Then it should not be the governments or the states job to support the crippled up Jackazz or his surviving family members if found dead with my tax paying dollars for his or hers piss poor judgment call either! Feel the so called “Open road freedom” on his or hers own dime not mine!!mkelly04 said:
I own a couple of Harley’s and I’ve been riding the pavement since I was 16 yrs old. I hit the biker bashes & some poker runs and you know what’s really funny is that I see a lot of so called bikers falling over on their bikes in bar parking lots as well as in fields while leaving the bashes. Now can you imagine the possibilities of a fatality in this situation because a helmet wasn’t worn?...LMAO….I’m going to continue to wear my DOT APPROVED helmet fo sho! It may not be cool but I say put some more chrome on your bike :cool:
DW
Wolverine423 said:
How far do you want to take this? Should I have to pay for your medical bills if you eat unhealthy and have a heart attack? If you have a genetic defect that you pass to your children should I have to pay for it since you made a judgment call to procreate? Should I pay for your medical bills if you get into an accident and dont have a 5 star crash tested vehicle?
Like I said, I agree that it is stupid not to wear a helmet, but its a slippery slope when we start passing laws to protect people.
- Jan 30, 2005
- 644
- 0
You guys are WAAAAAAAAAY over thinking this... I mean, seriously.
Alot of states have repealed the helmet laws over the last few years and even longer. This isnt news. Mostly, the back lash has been minimal.
The real victems are only the ones that choose to be victems. you think you are paying higher ins. premiuns because of this? PLEASE! Look at your past statements and try to determine the cause of all the other rate hikes. If you insurance goes up it's cuz they feel like jacking it up. nothing more. Insurance is one of the biggest scams going. They take and take and take and then as soom as it looks like they may have to actually pay something for a change they jack up your rates of in extremecases will go to the government for federal deferments to keep from having to pay. Hell, I had a major insurance carrier dropp me after college because I was going back home to FL. they said that it was too high risk and they were no longer going to accpt new policies there. What a load.
Then there is the state. what do they gain from this? hard to say really. increased revenew? This wil most likely be negligable at first. Think about it. You have to have a $100 sticker (or whatever) to be entitled to ride helmet free. So it comes down to enforcement. How do you enforce a policy like this without coming dangerously close to harassment? Answer, you really cant. This will be a selective enforcement program.
the only time you will get checked or sited will be if
A) the officer is REALLY bored.
-or-
B) if there is another incident warrenting the stop. (accident, dui, etc.)
Anything else will completely negate the "tourism" angle many have flaunted to ge this bill to pass. Do you think Joe Wingnut will travel 1500miles from FL ( a helmetless state) to ride in MI only to be told he must go buy a lid and pay this fine for not having one in the first place? C'mon. We are already "required" to have a cycle endorsement. how many riders do you think actually have one? I know several people that just go take the written test every year to get the temp learners permit (for free w/o a rode test) and then renew it when it runs out. I also know for a fact that alot of riders DONT have one. Do you think that the state goes out looking for these people? and if they do catch them it most offten a fix it ticket (go get the learners permit for free) and thats the end of it.
Then we have our "responsibilty" advocates. WAKE UP, AND SMELL THE RICH EXHAST FUMES!" Hardley Ableson and all the other R.U.B.s dont give to shiats about "how would your family fell if the EMS has to clean you off the road with a sponge" argument. Do you you really think that a guy spends upward of 30k+ for a chromed out bike and a neato black leather outfit that would be just as at home in a german leather bar as it is on the road with his "gang". These guys arent bikers, they want to be seen, present and image, and they spend money to do it. ALOT OF IT! My home town is Daytona Beach, FL. lived there almost my entire life. I know all too well what bikers (and more importantly R.U.B.s) bring to the table in the way of dollars to the economy. If it werent for Bike Week and more recently Biketoberfest back home that town would have completely dried up decades ago. Bikers putt more money into the local economy in the few weeks a year they invade DB, than everything else that happens there COMBINED. Dont believe me? Do some research, it's all there.
The point really is simple though. as others have stated, the government trying to protect us from our selves is wrong, whether you ride with or with out a lid is irrelevent. I've been riding since I was 4. I got my first street bike and my endorsment at 15. The longest I've EVER been without a bike was 9 mos. I ride, and I always wear a lid, it's just the way it is. but I wont be responsible for taking away someone elses fredom to ride with out it just because I dont agreee with their desision. It goes against the very fiber of what our forefathers built this country on; LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
right or wrong, agree or disagree.. I agree with the new law because it IS about freedom of choice. But more importantly it's about money, and a way for people to get their grubby little hands on as much as they can. wether it goes in the states coffers, or the Ins. Co. it really does not matter much. one way or another you will be separated from the money in your wallet, best to accept the new law in hopes that it will bring "foreigners" in to help separate them from theres as well.
RIDE ON! :ride:
Alot of states have repealed the helmet laws over the last few years and even longer. This isnt news. Mostly, the back lash has been minimal.
The real victems are only the ones that choose to be victems. you think you are paying higher ins. premiuns because of this? PLEASE! Look at your past statements and try to determine the cause of all the other rate hikes. If you insurance goes up it's cuz they feel like jacking it up. nothing more. Insurance is one of the biggest scams going. They take and take and take and then as soom as it looks like they may have to actually pay something for a change they jack up your rates of in extremecases will go to the government for federal deferments to keep from having to pay. Hell, I had a major insurance carrier dropp me after college because I was going back home to FL. they said that it was too high risk and they were no longer going to accpt new policies there. What a load.
Then there is the state. what do they gain from this? hard to say really. increased revenew? This wil most likely be negligable at first. Think about it. You have to have a $100 sticker (or whatever) to be entitled to ride helmet free. So it comes down to enforcement. How do you enforce a policy like this without coming dangerously close to harassment? Answer, you really cant. This will be a selective enforcement program.
the only time you will get checked or sited will be if
A) the officer is REALLY bored.
-or-
B) if there is another incident warrenting the stop. (accident, dui, etc.)
Anything else will completely negate the "tourism" angle many have flaunted to ge this bill to pass. Do you think Joe Wingnut will travel 1500miles from FL ( a helmetless state) to ride in MI only to be told he must go buy a lid and pay this fine for not having one in the first place? C'mon. We are already "required" to have a cycle endorsement. how many riders do you think actually have one? I know several people that just go take the written test every year to get the temp learners permit (for free w/o a rode test) and then renew it when it runs out. I also know for a fact that alot of riders DONT have one. Do you think that the state goes out looking for these people? and if they do catch them it most offten a fix it ticket (go get the learners permit for free) and thats the end of it.
Then we have our "responsibilty" advocates. WAKE UP, AND SMELL THE RICH EXHAST FUMES!" Hardley Ableson and all the other R.U.B.s dont give to shiats about "how would your family fell if the EMS has to clean you off the road with a sponge" argument. Do you you really think that a guy spends upward of 30k+ for a chromed out bike and a neato black leather outfit that would be just as at home in a german leather bar as it is on the road with his "gang". These guys arent bikers, they want to be seen, present and image, and they spend money to do it. ALOT OF IT! My home town is Daytona Beach, FL. lived there almost my entire life. I know all too well what bikers (and more importantly R.U.B.s) bring to the table in the way of dollars to the economy. If it werent for Bike Week and more recently Biketoberfest back home that town would have completely dried up decades ago. Bikers putt more money into the local economy in the few weeks a year they invade DB, than everything else that happens there COMBINED. Dont believe me? Do some research, it's all there.
The point really is simple though. as others have stated, the government trying to protect us from our selves is wrong, whether you ride with or with out a lid is irrelevent. I've been riding since I was 4. I got my first street bike and my endorsment at 15. The longest I've EVER been without a bike was 9 mos. I ride, and I always wear a lid, it's just the way it is. but I wont be responsible for taking away someone elses fredom to ride with out it just because I dont agreee with their desision. It goes against the very fiber of what our forefathers built this country on; LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
right or wrong, agree or disagree.. I agree with the new law because it IS about freedom of choice. But more importantly it's about money, and a way for people to get their grubby little hands on as much as they can. wether it goes in the states coffers, or the Ins. Co. it really does not matter much. one way or another you will be separated from the money in your wallet, best to accept the new law in hopes that it will bring "foreigners" in to help separate them from theres as well.
RIDE ON! :ride:
If you really want to protect you cranial cavity, you had better go with a Snell rating. The DOT doesn't actually "approve" helmets, they don't even bother to test them, they have simply stated a set of testing guidelines. It is up to the manufacturer to make sure that the helmet meets the standards before putting the little sticker on the back.Wolverine423 said:
Going back to big brother taking control of our decision making ability, driving over the speed limit is dangerous, so what's stopping Uncle Sam from limiting our vehicles to 70 mph, the technology is already there. How about taking it a step farther? Since there is no real need to exceed 3500 RPM on the road, let's program the rev limiter in all cars to keep the engine speeds below that. I am pretty sure that they could also put transmitters in the roads, and require auto manufactures to install receivers, so that our vehicle could actually acquire the speed limits on any given road and prevent the car from exceeding it. They could also put rain sensors on the cars (these already exist) and program the speed limiter to reduce the allowable speed if it is raining outside. Now, the only reason that I can think of for the government to not do these things is because it would reduce the revenue that is generated by moving violations. Hey, drunk drivers have already been mentioned, let's require every car to have a built in breathalyzer, that way you can't start the car if you've had too much to drink.
How much are you willing to give up in the interest of safety? Where's the line that they can't cross?
By the way, you may see the road sensors in the near future, only they will be used, along with a transmitter in your car, to automate the citation process. That's right, you car will rat you out for speeding, and po-po won't have to worry about catching you.
According to the federal gov't and the insurance companies itjoey450 said:
IS!
Health insurance portability act goes as far as allowing your insurance company to deny coverage for particapating in a hazadous hobby. This include motorcycles both on and off the road!
It does all come down to revenue or percieved revenue to the States.
But when we all end up paying, due to the actions of a few(which we will,)where will the money come from after the insurance company legally denies coverage after the accident occurs?
You and me in the form of higher premiums and further taxation.
That all said, I believe although looking out for the publics best interest and personal safety, further legislated infringement on our freedoms go unwanted by the majority of people.
Helmets save lives as well as seatbelts and a host of other safety equipment,but should they all be legislated to keep us safe from ourselves?
Getting out of bed on Monday morning is a good example.
Medical studies show that most heart attacks occur at this time. Should we make it illegal to get out of bed on Monday? :bang:
So, would this be a case of providing a minor with alcohol without the parents consent?woodsy said:
But to rebut the point of harm done, suppose I am drinking in the privacy of my own home, and one of my son's friends drops by. Well, this child will witness me drinking in a responsible manner, and not driving. Perhaps later in life, when he is taking his first drink, this child will remember that I was relaxing on the sofa, or maybe playing Monopoly with the family, instead of acting like a stupid drunk, then maybe this child will do the same.
I feel that I was lucky in my early days (17-21), the people that provided me with alcohol also provided me with a good example to follow, and they took care of me while I learned my limits. Unfortunately, most underage drinkers are accompanied only by their underage friends and never learn to be responsible with it.
BadgerMan
Mi. Trail Riders
- Jan 1, 2001
- 2,479
- 10
woodsy said:
Woodsy......you troublemaker you........I am not sure where this whole alcoanalogy came from or where it is going but I am gonna turn the tables on you. Knowing the inherent dangers surrounding alcohol consumption, would YOU agree with a lowering of the legal drinking age? More freedom is better, right.......as long as we can ensure that inocent people are not hurt?
Now you know as well as I do that they still have plenty of beer and motorsicles in those countries ;)
BTW, you may have noticed that I am kinda/sorta tending to agree with you :ohmy: on the whole freedom issue.
We are on the same side as far as legislating away our freedom. I am pro helmet, but anti helmet law. I am also a drinking man.woodsy said:
I do believe that drinking is OK, and anybody can drink as much as they want, while still being responsible. Of course, many kids start drinking when one of their friends sneaks liquor out of their parents cabinet. Others get their start while they are trying to be cool with the young adults that haven't yet learned to be responsible themselves. The fact that our society is screaming "don't drink" only makes the rebellious youth want to do it more, and they encourage the others. This unsupervised indoctrination is the biggest problem with drinking. As a parent, I have already made it clear to my kids that if they feel the urge to drink, then I want them to come to me, this way I can keep them from becoming another drunken statistic and they can learn to be responsible drinkers instead of stupid drunks. Of course, most parents are so busy telling their kids not to drink to realize that their kids already do.
- Jan 30, 2005
- 644
- 0
BadgerMan said:
not really. just one really long woodsy-esque point.
Funny it didnt seem that long winded in my head. :think:
Wolverine423
~SPONSOR~
- Oct 2, 2005
- 2,498
- 0
woodsy said:
Thank's Woodsy! Been planning to ride to Sturgis for years but it seems like plans always get screwed due to the racing seasons! Have plans to go to Daytona in March with my father {He built a custom trike last year} and ride down to the keys for 4 days.
110 degrees on pavement? No prob! Just did Roselawn's Summer Bummer enduro with 100 plus degrees & high humidity in full moto gear! After the race I was still able to talk in sentences - Cuss and drive back home while my 19 yr old slept like a baby :laugh:
PS. By the way a friend of mine Mr. "gotta own a Harley to be a true biker" hit a fricken buffalo out there :coocoo: - And recieved a ticket for it :laugh: I asked him "Now do I have to hit a buffalo to be a true biker"? I got no response......
- Jan 30, 2005
- 644
- 0
Wolverine423 said:
oh, man... I hate those guys.
I've logged more miles on my "rice rockets" in a decade than most of those guys do in a life time.
When I was 15 during the '86 Bike Week in Daytona there was a picture that appeared in the Daytona news journel ( local paper) of a sea of Harleys parked front of the Boot Hill saloon on main street. in front of the door right in the middle of all the "American Iron" was one little Honda. A red CB125S that belonged to yours truely. I was out for the day riding with my dad. one of the handfull of times in my life that has ever happened. Any REAL biker doesnt care what you ride as long as you DO in fact RIDE.
Wolverine423
~SPONSOR~
- Oct 2, 2005
- 2,498
- 0
Wolf Child said:
I really enjoy kicking there azzes in their biker games! I haven’t lost a slow race in 7yrs. It really irritates the hardcore’s!
