Ironic Ending

[KingBear]

Helmet laws are just one example of our government trying to legislate common sense. The laws of this country, both state and federal, have gotten far afield of what they should be. Is there any aspect of my life our government cannot regulate? What I eat, how I raise my kids, what kind of entertainment I enjoy, what I do for a living...? Laws are passed and then selectively enforced, or enforced to draconian levels, or not enforced at all. It is total bullshit, the fruits of unbridled government.

Please wear a helmet, not because it is the law but because you should.

 

[simpson]

@Sal Paradise, I have seen this posted up on at least 4 other motorcycle forums. The discussions are all fairly similar, with the usual "helmet law" arguments.

-simpson

 

[Sal Paradise]

I really don't understand the anti helmet argument and I never will. I often wonder who people think "the government " is. Its the same people who ride the motorcycles. I wonder if the guy who died because he had no helmet would do it again - I doubt it. His last thoughts were probably pain and regret.

I think the idea of most safety regs is basically the same; passing this rule = prevent needless injuries. Some kid somewhere gets to grow up with a father and that is worth something. Thats the argument for traffic laws, safety regulations in the workplace, building codes. Prevent harm. Its not like they make us put our motorcycles in a bubble.

Is there any aspect they can't regulate? I think thats largely up to the person - it depends mostly on what activities you do, whether you choose to walk at 5 feet per second versus fly in a plane at 8 miles a minute or ride a motorcycle at 75 mph.

It doesn't matter to your brain why you wear a helmet. It gets protection or it doesn't without regard to political theories. It bleeds and dies, or gets up and walks away without any politics at all.

 

[jphickory]

Sal, I think the reason you don’t understand those of us against helmet laws is because you personally think they should be worn. I agree with you that wearing a helmet is a good idea – I do wear one – but I am against helmet laws. The reason that I am against them is based on liberty; I see laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves as a serious threat to our freedom.

Everyone’s threshold of acceptable risk is different. Many people will not even consider owning and riding a motorcycle because it exceeds their acceptable level of risk. When you allow the government to decide what level of risk is “appropriate” in your life you have forfeited your personal freedom and the right to make your own choices. There is no limit to what the government could decide to restrict based on “common sense” or “personal safety”. Do you want to give them that authority? I hope not.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/King-Co-requires-life-vests-for-swimmers-1432255.php

The link describes a city in the USA that will require all adults to wear a life vest when swimming in the rivers of their town. Now, imagine you are an excellent swimmer and had swum in those rivers your entire life without incident – now you are forced to wear a life jacket because of some bureaucrats.

You may agree with the helmet law – but don’t be surprised if they try to eliminate or regulate something in your future you don’t agree with. They will use the same logic that it is in your “best” interest. I think then you may understand those of us against laws that erode our precious freedom.

“Heaven help us if the government ever gets into the business of protecting us from ourselves.” Ronald Reagan - 1973

 

[whyme]

I'll give you an ironic helmet story...took a CPR refresher class last week. The instructor had a picture of his Harley on his computer desktop and he mentioned that he was from CT which does not have a helmet law. Of course I had to ask..."you being a trained EMT do you wear a helmet on that Harley??" Nope he says.

 

[slowgator]

Oh man, this topic will never die. I ride with a full faced helmet because I CHOOSE to do so. I could give a shit what others do.

As far as government, it concerns me that SO many others think government is their enemy. I don't see it that way and encourage those that do to GET INVOLVED to change the laws that they don't agree with. That's the way it was set up from the time we separated from the Brits on our anniversary just yesterday...

PEACE OUT BROTHERS!

 

[2Monkeys]

A guy looses his life and that is your response? Sad.

There are lots of things that are sad and in their context also funny... providing you have a sense of humor of course

 

[Sal Paradise]

Try as I may, I can't see how increased head safety for motorcyclists has any negative impacts on really important freedoms like freedom of speech or assembly. I see many other bad impacts on those freedoms everyday, but not from helmets, or goggles or gloves. Even if a helmet is required, or a seat belt, or life preservers for little kids, it still doesn't impact those important freedoms. Other things do, some severely, but those things aren't up for discussion here.

 

[ThruxTonUp]

This comes under the WTF??? dept.

Ooopps -- sorry just read Sal's post after posting!



NEW YORK (Reuters) - A bare-headed motorcyclist riding in protest of New York state's helmet law crashed, struck his head on the roadway and died from his injuries, state police said on Sunday.
Philip Contos, 55, was riding among a large group of motorcyclists staging an organized protest ride in western New York near Syracuse against the state law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets.
The Parish, New York, resident crashed on Saturday on Route 11 in Onondaga, New York, and was pronounced dead later at a local hospital, state Trooper Robert Jureller said.
"The doctor felt that the death could have been prevented if he simply had been wearing a helmet," Jureller said. "He hit the brakes, lost control, was ejected and struck his head on the road. He suffered a skull fracture."

 

[jphickory]

Try as I may, I can't see how increased head safety for motorcyclists has any negative impacts on really important freedoms like freedom of speech or assembly. I see many other bad impacts on those freedoms everyday, but not from helmets, or goggles or gloves. Even if a helmet is required, or a seat belt, or life preservers for little kids, it still doesn't impact those important freedoms. Other things do, some severely, but those things aren't up for discussion here.

Sal, I understand your point and don't disagree with you entirely. My point is you can not divide freedom - choosing to keep "some freedoms" and giving up others. All freedom is important. The Founding Fathers of our country designed our republic so the goverment is the server of the people not the master. Allowing them to legislate laws that protect you from yourself puts them in position of master.

Government has an inborn tendency to grow and, left to itself, will grow beyond control of the people. Only constant vigilance by the people will inhibit its growth. People that love freedom ought to weigh everything that's proposed by their goverment... against the loss of a personal freedom. It is the only way it can be preserved for future generations. :usa:

 

[2Monkeys]

Freedom is as over-rated as responsibility toward others is under-rated... there is a balance.

 

[henrys]

Sal, I understand your point and don't disagree with you entirely. My point is you can not divide freedom - choosing to keep "some freedoms" and giving up others. All freedom is important. The Founding Fathers of our country designed our republic so the goverment is the server of the people not the master. Allowing them to legislate laws that protect you from yourself puts them in position of master.

Government has an inborn tendency to grow and, left to itself, will grow beyond control of the people. Only constant vigilance by the people will inhibit its growth. People that love freedom ought to weigh everything that's proposed by their goverment... against the loss of a personal freedom. It is the only way it can be preserved for future generations. :usa:

It's a helmet law, man, they are not going to take our bikes. It's no different from seatbelts. I know many smart people that refuse to wear a helmet for whatever stupid reason (my father included). I personally don't want to see them die. I support the helmet law. That guy probably would have survived if he had his helmet. Some things just need to be legislated because people are stupid and this is a perfect example.

 

[Kirkus51]

This country (as does the world) evolves. In the 50s and early 60s, seatbelts were an option. Didn't even know what a child seat was. There were no helmet laws and damned few helmets out there were uh... safe.

Riding has evolved from few bikes making 60hp to that range being a "starter" bike. I usually ride with a helmet cuz I wouldn't be here if I hadn't worn one back when. I would like to see more helmets out there, but I want it as an option.

 

[dschief]

This country (as does the world) evolves. In the 50s and early 60s, seatbelts were an option. Didn't even know what a child seat was. There were no helmet laws and damned few helmets out there were uh... safe.

Riding has evolved from few bikes making 60hp to that range being a "starter" bike. I usually ride with a helmet cuz I wouldn't be here if I hadn't worn one back when. I would like to see more helmets out there, but I want it as an option.

Right to chose! Amen!

 

[KingBear]

People who think "the government" should be able to pass whatever rules they believe are necessary to prevent "needless injuries" should sit down, take a deep breath, and think for just a moment (if they can). Would motorcycles be legal at all? Would sports cars be legal? Watercraft? Think of all the lives that would be saved and the children who would grow up with fathers if snow skiing were made illegal. Skydiving. Scuba diving. White water rafting.

I know, I know, please save me the counterpoints and arguments. I know it's ridiculous. My point is people do things because they enjoy them, and if there is risk involved the risk is their own. Who would decide which activities should be regulated or outlawed altogether? Who would decide which injuries are "needless" and how much protective equipment is enough? If helmets are required then why not jackets, gloves, and steel-toed boots? Needless injuries could be avoided if all riders were required to wear draggin' jeans or leather chaps!

I'll tell you who decides all that. G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T. And since it has been asked I will tell you exactly who the government is. Government is a group of people made up of generally decent individuals who, like any other group of people, do things as a body they would never dream of doing individually. They are people who work under public scrutiny yet rely on a certain level of anonymity as they pass stupid laws, spend money they don't have, and generally tell the public how to live their lives and run their businesses while they carry out their own business exempt from those same laws. They legislate common sense, and yet so often seem to possess none. No single raindrop ever accepted responsibility for the flood.

If you can think then perhaps you can read, and maybe you might read a little piece by Mark Twain entitled The Danger of Lying in Bed. It's a good read if you have a sense of humor.

 

[Sal Paradise]

I think its a particular view of the world that makes virtually any safety regulation, regardless of how necessary ( as this one clearly is) or sane into the moral equivalent of an evil totalitarian dictatorship. Once you get to that point of view, the law or regulation isn't the issue any more, because that viewpoint makes any and all reason or sense irrelevant.

 

[whyme]

Unfortunately HenryS is correct. Some people are just too stupid to know any better and they need a little help. What people forget is the more injuries that happen, the more money comes out of taxpayers pockets. What about the rifer who does not where a helmet, gets in an accident and survives but needs to be in the hospital for x months because of brain damage and then x months of rehab. opps he didn't have any insurance. Where does that money come from?....what about the rider who gets hit by a car and dies and then his heirs file a huge lawsuit...oh well the insurance company pays for that right? Tack that one onto your premium. I'm all for freedom of choice but sometimes the stupid people need some help with their choices because in the end we all pay.

 

[Sal Paradise]

talk abouts stupidity - I just washed my god damn bi weekly paycheck!! Its totally fucked and so am I !! It will take my payroll weeks to come up with another.. and the wife is furious!! thaats stupidity...

 

[jphickory]

I think its a particular view of the world that makes virtually any safety regulation, regardless of how necessary ( as this one clearly is) or sane into the moral equivalent of an evil totalitarian dictatorship. Once you get to that point of view, the law or regulation isn't the issue any more, because that viewpoint makes any and all reason or sense irrelevant.

Sal, I guess they should illegalize alcohol. Why not reduce the speed limit on all US Interstates to 45 mph? Obviously both of these laws
are "necessary" and "common sense" because thousands of lives would be saved annually. Would you support those ideas?

I share the view point of the Founding Fathers of our country regarding limited government. I'd say that is pretty good company.

 

[dschief]

talk abouts stupidity - I just washed my god damn bi weekly paycheck!! Its totally fucked and so am I !! It will take my payroll weeks to come up with another.. and the wife is furious!! thaats stupidity...

You should be required to have direct deposit. Oops, that's my company that does that.oke: